Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Learned counsel for applicant, to the contrary, argues that any entries in diary are not admissible in evidence as per judgment of L.K. Advani v. Central Bureau of Investigation 1997 (41) DRJ and that these entries were merely made in anticipation as to how much profit the applicant may get in the transactions between the parties which are civil in nature.

7. I have heard arguments and have gone through the entire material on record.

9. Moreover, in furtherance of order dated 14.02.2019, though the applicant had joined the investigation, he had not co-operated with the investigating agency. He has also paid a sum of Rs. 30 Lakhs to the complainant towards part of his liability of Rs.1,61,00,000/-. Learned counsel for applicant had placed reliance on the decision of L.K. Advani vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (supra) regarding the entries in the hand writing of the concerned parties, however, the said judgment is of no help to the applicant since that was on different facts & circumstances. In this case, the entries of note of account are in the hand writing of the applicant himself where the parties have mentioned as to what is the amount owed and the manner in which it is owed to them. While deciding this application, this Court also takes note of the fact that the parties belong to rural background and the note of account is thus made in their own handwriting as generally people who are close relatives as they are in the present case make.