Cash At Judge's Door Scam Case | Punjab & Haryana HC Allows CBI To Examine 12 Witnesses Against Justice Nirmal Yadav

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has allowed CBI to recall or examine 12 witnesses in the infamous cash at judge's door scam case. 

In 2008, a peon of then sitting judge of Punjab & Haryana Court Justice Nirmaljit Kaur filed a complaint that a bag of Rs.15 lakh cash was delivered at Justice Kaur's Court by a clerk who was later apprehended after the judge asked to catch him. The case was transferred to CBI and according to prosecution, the bag was meant to be delivered to Justice Nirmal Yadav's residence.

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said, "After careful consideration of the submissions and settled principles of law, this Court finds that the … witnesses are necessary for just adjudication of the case coupled with the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the accused as the defence would get opportunity to rebut the evidence led by the witnesses summoned under Section 311 CrPC.”

The six witnesses include IAS, to prove sanction for prosecution, CBI Officers Tanmaya Behara and S.K. Sharma, to authenticate seizure memos, Rajesh Kumar, Special Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, to clarify ambiguity in his previous deposition which arose on account of him identifying the accused as “Nirmaljit”.

The Court directed the CBI to examine the above witnesses within four weeks from the date of this order.

"The Trial Court shall ensure that no unnecessary adjournments are granted; the defence shall also cooperate with the learned Trial Court in the expeditious conclusion of the trial," it added.

The plea was filed by CBI seeking the recalling and re-examination of 22 witnesses as well as summoning additional witnesses to substantiate its case.

The case was opposed by the accused persons on multiple grounds, including delay, alleged abuse of process, and an attempt by the prosecution to fill lacunae in its case at a highly belated stage.

After examining the submissions, the Court noted that "the over-arching objective of Section 311 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that no material evidence, which is necessary for determining the truth is left out due to inadvertence, oversight, or even a deliberate omission."

The provision must be interpreted in a manner that furthers the cause of justice, ensuring that an innocent person is not wrongly convicted and that a guilty person does not escape punishment due to procedural or evidentiary gaps, said the Court.

Reliance was placed on Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others [2004] underscore that the Courts are not passive spectators in a trial and must play an active role to ensure that justice is done.

Justice Kaul highlighted merely because allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. may delay the conclusion of the trial, it cannot be a ground to deprive the complainant of its right to a fair trial.

"The Court must, while striking a balance between the two, apply its mind to the necessity of the evidence to be led under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in order to arrive at a just decision in the case," it observed.

Consequently, the Court allowed the examination of six witnesses and with regard to other witnesses, the Court said the CBI failed to establish their relevance or necessity.

 Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Spl. Public Prosecutor, CBI. Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Sangram S. Saron, Advocate and Mr. Madhavrao Rajwade, Advocate for respondent No.3.

Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate for respondent No.4.

Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravinder Singh @ Ravinder Singh Bhasin and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 81

Click here to read/download the order