Probe indicts CBI judge in graft case, matter under HC’S consideration

Inquiry upholds charge against former judge of Patiala CBI court Hemant Gopal that he had taken a bribe of ₹40 lakh to let-off an accused in FCI rice embezzlement scam in 2013

PATIALA/CHANDIGARH: Twenty two months after an inquiry instituted by the Punjab and Haryana high court indicted an additional district and session judge for giving “favourable judgment” in lieu of monetary bribe, the matter is still under consideration of the high court, it is officially learnt.

In her 80-page report submitted to the high court in March 2018, the district and sessions judge Ritu Tagore had upheld the charge against Hemant Gopal that he as then-special judge of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court in Patiala had taken bribe of Rs 40 lakh for acquittal of an accused Parminder Singh in a Food Corporation of India rice embezzlement scam in which he had convicted 23 others, including a former Congress MLA Mangat Rai Bansal.

‘MONEY CHANGED HANDS THROUGH LAW OFFICER’

The money, according to the report, changed hands through a Punjab government law officer who has since been removed from the job. Gopal was suspended in September 2013 by the high court on the basis of a discreet inquiry by then registrar (vigilance) Arun Kumar Tyagi into a complaint lodged by Bansal. The

court issued him a chargesheet in January 2014 which he replied two months later. He has since been under suspension and stationed at Faridkot.

In a subsequent probe into the chargesheet, Tagore reported her damning finding, saying, “I hold that all allegations (all eight charges, including taking bribe through middleman), are proved against the delinquent officer Hemant Gopal.”

“Facts and sequences of events, raises inference of entertaining

extraneous considerations while passing the judgment by the judge”, reads the report accessed by Hindustan Times. The report has relied on oral, electronic and circumstantial evidences to nail the erring judge.

In reply to a petition under the Right to Information Act on January 4, the high court joint registrar (vigilance) Satish Kumar Wig informed that “the matter pertaining to inquiry against Hemant Gopal, CBI Judge, Patiala, is pending for consideration in this court.” Mangat Ram Bansal along with 27 others, including rice millers and FCI officials, were booked in 2001 by the CBI under sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC, and prevention of corruption Act. All were charged for causing loss to the FCI in custom milling of rice.

Bansal and 23 other rice millers were held guilty of paddy embezzlement. The trial was completed in 2013. While pronouncing the verdict, CBI judge Hemant Gopal had acquitted Parminder Singh.

VIDEO CD AS EVIDENCE

Following his conviction, Bansal lodged a complaint against the CBI judge and produced a video CD — purportedly showing Sushil Singla, a law officer of the Punjab government, collecting bribe from Parminder on judge’s behalf — as evidence.

In February 2015, the Punjab government dismissed Sushil Singla following a probe by BC Gupta, a retired additional sessions judge, who indicted the law officer saying his role in the racket had been proved beyond doubt. Gupta said Singla had taken the bribe from Parminder and others, who were later let-off by the judge.

In the final inquiry report against Hemant Gopal, district and sessions judge Ritu Tagore says: “It is true that there is no evidence that anyone saw Sushil Kumar (middleman) handing over the alleged Rs 40 lakh bribe to the judge at his Patiala residence. In such cases, the availability of direct evidence on all accounts may not be available. Furthermore, such type of activity is always performed under sheer privacy. The entire sequence of facts leads to no other interference except that Singla gave the bribe amount to the judge…”

“The relationship of judge and middleman stands established. Both were in constant touch through different phones as per the call detail records,” she adds.

When contacted, Bansal said he stands vindicated. “I have full faith in Judiciary and do hope that guilty would be punished”, he added.

Gopal refused to comment on the report saying: “One of my close relative is critically ill and I can’t talk at this moment”.

On March 2014, in his reply to the chargesheet by registrar (vigilance), Gopal had denied of having any link with Sushil Singla. “How can you blame a person, if someone is collecting money or striking a deal on behalf of an officer. I’m being made a scapegoat. I don’t know who is Sushil Singla”, he said. On being asked what action has been taken in the case, registrar, vigilance, Vikram Aggarwal said he was not authorised to speak to the media.