It's crucial to remember that the 'Cash at Judge's Door' case, in which the High Court exonerated former judge Nirmal Yadav of all charges, took place on August 13, 2008

On Saturday, March 29, a special CBI Court in Chandigarh cleared former Punjab and Haryana High Court Judge Nirmal Yadav in the 'Cash at Judge's Door' case, ending a 14-year legal battle. There were many legal complications, several hearings, and changes in the judicial panel during the case, which involved grave charges of bribery and corruption.

"The judiciary is indeed fair; although the process has taken a considerable amount of time, possibly for various reasons, it is now resolved," Justice Yadav said in a press conference after the decision. Here is a quick synopsis.

Who is Nirmal Yadav, the former judge?

In 1975, Nirmal Yadav, a former High Court judge, joined the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Council. She also taught law at Punjab University in Chandigarh on a part-time basis. She was named Advocate General for Haryana in 1979, and in 1986 she was promoted to Additional District and Sessions Judge.

During her career, she served as a Judicial Member of the Mumbai-based Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and as a Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. In 2002, she began working at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and in 2006, she was promoted to the rank of judge. She was moved to the Uttarakhand High Court in February 2010 and worked there.

What was the case known as "Cash at Judge's Door"?

The case started on August 13, 2008, when it was reported that Justice Nirmaljit Kaur, a judge on the Punjab and Haryana High Court, received Rs 15 lakh in cash at his home. The money was supposed to go to Justice Yadav, but because their names were so similar, it was delivered to Justice Kaur's house instead.

After Justice Kaur informed the police and the then-chief justice of the High Court, a formal complaint was filed on August 16, 2008. The CBI was given the case ten days later, and on August 28 it submitted a fresh FIR.

According to the CBI's investigation, a clerk connected to the former Haryana Additional Advocate General.

What happened at the court trial for the CBI?

The CBI filed a closure report in December 2009 after a thorough investigation that lasted more than a year. Anupam Gupta, the CBI prosecutor at the time, challenged this report, which led the court to order additional investigation.

The High Court approved the CBI's request in January 2009 to prosecute Justice Yadav in November 2010. Following Justice Yadav's unsuccessful appeal of this ruling, the President of India's office finally granted the required approval in March 2011, which prompted the CBI to file a chargesheet.

Sanjiv Bansal, the main defendant, claimed that he was only a "courier boy" and attempted to have the FIR against him dropped. Bansal claimed in his application that hotelier Ravinder Singh, who is based in Delhi, gave him the money. But in July 2013, the special CBI court mandated that the accused be charged, and that happened in January 2014.

The other three people involved in the case were Prakash Ram, who was in charge of delivering the money; Nirmal Singh, who gave a false account about the money's intended use; and Rajiv Gupta, who argued that the funds were connected to a land transaction. The chargesheet did not include the clerk. After Bansal passed away in 2017, the legal action against him was dropped.

After the Supreme Court denied Justice Yadav's request to halt the trial court's operations, the special CBI court formally charged her on January 18, 2014. According to the CBI, Justice Yadav had acted in a way that was against the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988, which applies to public servants.

Only 69 of the 84 witnesses the prosecution called were called to testify during the trial. The High Court gave the trial court instructions to prevent needless delays and allowed the CBI to re-examine ten witnesses within four weeks in February of this year.

What was the CBI court's decision?

The CBI court, presided over by Judge Alka Malik, found Justice Nirmal Yadav and the other defendants not guilty due to a lack of evidence and inconsistent witness statements. A complete ruling has not yet been made public.