Chandigarh, March 26
The special CBI judge today declined to accept the closure report filed by the CBI and ordered further investigation by the agency into the infamous “cash-at-judge’s-door”scam that came to light in August 2008.

The principal accused in the case are Justice Nirmal Yadav, the then judge of the Punjab and Haryana High court, advocate Sanjiv Bansal, and Delhi hotelier Ravinder Singh.

Intervening in the case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association had opposed the closure report. Arguments for and against the report had been heard by the judge for almost a month.

Ordering further investigation, special judge Darshan Singh, however, also rejected the protest petition filed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association for having no locus standi in the case.

Addressing mediapersons later, Bar Association counsel Anupam Gupta said the Bar was happy that the special judge had not accepted the closure report. “The Bar had intervened with one objective that the closure report filed by the CBI should not be accepted and the case should not be given a burial,” he said, adding that the CBI investigation into the case would be under the scrutiny of the Bar Association.

Gupta said today’s judgement would be discussed by the general house of the bar association to decide on the future course of action.

Aug 13, 2008: Rs 15 lakh delivered to Justice Nirmaljit Kaur by advocate Sanjeev Bansal’s munshi

Aug 14, 2008: Another Rs 15 lakh delivered to Justice Nirmal Yadav by Bansal’s friend Rajeev Gupta

Aug 16, 2008: UT police lodges FIR

Aug 20, 2008: Sanjeev Bansal arrested

Aug 26, 2008: Case shifted to CBI

Dec 6, 2008: Justice Gokhale committee constituted by CJI submits report holding Justice Nirmal Yadav guilty

Dec 18, 2009: CBI submits closure report following denial of prosecution sanction

Feb 1, 2009: Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar files protest petition against CBI

Feb 9, 2010: Bar Association condemns CJI for denying sanction

Feb 10, 2010: CJI clarifies that CBI never sought sanction

March 20, 2010: Arguments on protest petition conclude