Chandigarh, Sept. 10 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court has sought a response from justice (retd) Nirmal Yadav and others on a plea by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging their acquittal in the 2008 corruption case. The high court bench of justice Manjari Nehru Kaul and justice HS Grewal, while issuing the notice, posted the matter for hearing on December 15 and further directed that the lower court record be requisitioned. On March 29 this year, a special CBI court in Chandigarh had acquitted justice Yadav, a Delhi-based hotelier, Ravinder Singh Bhasin, a Chandigarh-based businessman, Rajiv Gupta, and a local property dealer, Nirmal Singh, of all the charges. The initial FIR was registered by Chandigarh Police on August 13, 2008, in the case that made national headlines and was stated to be the first case where a sitting judge was booked in a corruption case. According to the prosecution, a packet containing Rs.15 lakh cash was mistakenly delivered at the Sector 11 residence of justice (retd) Nirmaljit Kaur, also a judge at the high court at that time. She complained to the police, who registered an FIR. The police said the cash was actually meant for justice (retd) Nirmal Yadav. The allegation was that the cash was payback for a favourable judgment in a property dispute in Panchkula in 2007 in favour of Sanjeev Bansal, then Haryana additional advocate general, Rajiv Gupta, and Ravinder Singh Bhasin, who were other accused in the case. Bansal died during the trial. Justice Yadav went on leave after her name figured in the scandal in 2008 and was subsequently transferred to the Uttarakhand high court. Within a fortnight of the incident, the case was handed over to the CBI. An internal panel of the Supreme Court and the CBI cleared justice Nirmaljit Kaur, who was also transferred to the Rajasthan high court in July 2012. She returned to the Punjab and Haryana high court in 2018 and retired in 2021. In 2009, the CBI filed a closure report saying that no case was made out. However, the CBI court rejected the closure report and ordered the agency to re-investigate the case. On July 28, 2010, the then Chief Justice of India accorded sanction to CBI to prosecute justice Nirmal Yadav, and the President's nod came on March 1, 2011. The CBI filed a chargesheet in the case on March 3, 2011, a day before justice Yadav was to retire. Justice Yadav approached the high court and the Supreme Court unsuccessfully on two occasions, challenging the proceedings. In 2014, the CBI court ordered framing of charges against all the accused in the case, including justice Nirmal Yadav. The trial concluded on March 27 this year. CBI's plea says the trial court erred both law and facts, and completely discarded the prosecution case, despite the existence of "credible material" including direct evidence of the recovery of Rs.15 lakh in cash, the chain of events suggesting delivery, and multiple confessional statements recorded during the investigation. "The prosecution's case is supported by the testimony of 78 witnesses. However, while assessing the merits of the case, the learned trial judge has conspicuously remained silent on the overall evidentiary landscape, confining the analysis to the testimony of only 10-12 witnesses. No reasoning or justification has been provided for disregarding the evidence of the remaining witnesses, thereby undermining a comprehensive appreciation of the case," the CBI has said in the appeal. It says there was an undisputed delivery of Rs.15 lakh, which clearly established the existence of 'illicit funds'. Further call detail records revealed frequent communication among Sanjiv Bansal, Bhasin, and Rajiv Gupta around the time of the incident, thereby corroborating the existence of a criminal conspiracy. Some testimonies were relevant to the case, which established that money was intended for justice Yadav, which were discarded by the trial court, the plea further states It further says that the charge that justice Yadav travelled to Delhi on a ticket booked by Sanjiv Bansal was duly proved and suggested prior meetings between them and a 'habit of taking benefits' from the accused. The trial court held that illegal gratification cannot be possibly given after a few months of the decision of the case, which CBI had alleged that justice Yadav gave in favour of Bansal. "..a plain reading of Section 11 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 would show that the consideration given for a business already transacted is also covered under the definition of illegal gratification, therefore the time gap would have no bearing," the CBI has argued....