In The Supreme Court of India
DECIDED ON-: 2 MARCH, 1998
BENCH: JUSTICE M.K. MUKHERJEE, JUSTICE S.P. KURDUKAR, JUSTICE K.T. THOMAS
FACTS
On May 3, 1991, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) conducted a search at J.K. Jain's premises in New Delhi, seizing various items including two diaries, two small notebooks, and two files. Among these materials were records detailing receipts and payments totalling Rs. 65.47 crores, with Rs. 53.5 crores being illegally transferred from overseas through unofficial channels between 1988 and 1991. These payments were made to 115 individuals, including politicians, some of whom held positions in Parliament, government officials, and associates of S.K. Jain, B.R. Jain, and N.K. Jain, three brothers involved in different businesses. The investigation by the CBI revealed that the Jains habitually made payments to influential public servants and high-ranking political figures, anticipating favours in return. The CBI alleged that payments were directed towards Shri Shukla and Shri Advani with the intention of securing official advantages. According to the CBI, these actions amounted to offenses under Section 120B I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d), 7, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Moreover, the charge-sheet specified that Shri Advani received Rs. 25 lakhs during his tenure as a Parliament member, while Shri Shukla, during his time in Parliament and as a Cabinet Minister, allegedly received Rs. 39 lakhs from the Jains between 1988 and 1991.
ISSUES
1. Do the books meet the additional criteria outlined in Section 34 to be considered admissible as evidence?
2. Are the entries considered admissions as defined in Section 17 of the Act, allowing them to be admitted as pertinent evidence under Section 21?
JUDGMENT
The court acquitted the defendants due to insufficient evidence; the case relied on diaries and files. However, as these documents were neither proper accounting books nor maintained in the regular course of business, they didn't meet the relevance criteria outlined in Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. If considered relevant in simpler terms, they were seen as corroborative evidence. The respondents argued against the admissibility of the documents under Section 10, stating a lack of material demonstrating even a basic, prima facie conspiracy. A similar contention arose regarding the applicability of sections 17 and 21, given the absence of material supporting an 'admission'.
댓글