Chandigarh Court Acquits Judge in 2008 Cash Case That Rocked the Judiciary

In a dramatic turn of events, a Chandigarh court has acquitted former Punjab and Haryana High Court judge, Justice Nirmal Yadav, in a long-standing corruption case that dates back to 2008. The case, which had raised serious questions about judicial integrity, stemmed from a mix-up involving a bag containing ₹15 lakh, mistakenly delivered to the residence of another judge, Justice Nirmaljit Kaur.

The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Alka Malik, cleared all accused, including Ravinder Singh Bhasin, Rajiv Gupta, and Nirmal Singh, marking the end of a legal battle that spanned over a decade.

The Case That Shook the Judiciary

The controversy began in August 2008 when a peon at Justice Kaur’s residence reported the unexpected delivery of a bag filled with cash. Authorities were immediately alerted, and an investigation was launched, leading to a First Information Report (FIR) by the Chandigarh Police. The case was soon transferred to a central investigative agency, which initially sought to close the matter but later filed a charge sheet in 2011.

According to the prosecution, the money was meant for Justice Yadav but was mistakenly sent to Justice Kaur due to the similarity in their names. Justice Kaur, upon discovering the cash, wasted no time in reporting it to the authorities.

A Legal Battle Spanning Years

Following the incident, Justice Yadav was transferred to the Uttarakhand High Court in 2010, where she later retired. In 2014, charges were formally framed against five accused. The case saw numerous twists and turns, including the death of one of the main accused, Sanjeev Bansal, in 2016, which led to the proceedings against him being dropped.

Despite extensive witness testimonies and multiple re-examinations ordered by the court, the case concluded with the acquittal of all accused. The judgment brings an end to a trial that had drawn significant attention due to its implications on judicial ethics and accountability.

With the verdict now delivered, the case serves as a reminder of the complexities and challenges in prosecuting high-profile corruption cases. Whether it marks the end of the controversy or sparks further debate remains to be seen.