Summoed by the special CBI court on November 26 for framing of corruption charges against her, Justice (Retd) Nirmal Yadav has moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court, demanding a stay on the trial of the cash-at-judge’s-door scam in which she stands chargesheeted by the CBI.
In an application filed by her, Justice Yadav has requested the High Court to stay the entire proceedings of the trial pending in the special CBI court.
Yadav has petitioned the High Court after special CBI judge Vimal Kumar last week announced that he would go ahead and frame charges against her and other accused, notwithstanding the revision petition earlier filed by Yadav in the High Court.
Admitting Yadav’s petition, Justice N K Sanghi of the High Court on September 13 had virtually stayed the trial by summoning the entire original records from the CBI court. On October 26, the High Court, on the administrative side, returned the original records to the CBI court and decided to keep a xerox copy of it. This facilitated the resumption of the trial.
Observing that in the absence of any formal stay from the High Court, the CBI court could proceed with the trial, special CBI judge Vimal Kumar had directed Yadav and the co-accused to remain present in the court on November 26 for framing of charges under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act. The CBI judge had also referred to returning of the original records by the High Court by way of an administrative order.
Now Yadav has demanded that the entire trial should be put to a halt till the High Court decides her revision petition wherein she has challenged the original decision of the CBI court ordering framing of charges.
Giving the sequence of events, Yadav has argued that since she has challenged the judgment of the CBI court in her revision petition, the challenge thrown by her be decided first by the High Court and till then the trial be stayed.
Yadav’s fresh application will come up for hearing in the High Court this week.
In a damaging judgment, special CBI judge Vimal Kumar on July 31 had ruled that