Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Mr. Amit Jhanji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in CRM-M No.37721 of 2020 would contend that registration of the FIR itself is not sustainable, he was never posted as an ETO in the Mobile Wing at Amritsar nor has he been nominated in the said FIR. It is submitted that he has been implicated merely on account of a disclosure statement of Shiv Kumar munshi of Som Nath and on the basis that a register was seized in which details of amounts paid to the officials/officers were maintained. He would further argue that the judgments rendered by the Delhi High Court in L.K. Advani Vs. CBI 1997 (4) RCR (Criminal) 26 and the judgment rendered in CBI vs V.C. Shukla (1988) 3 SCC 410 have clearly held that for such entries to be made admissible under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, it must be shown that the entries are in books of accounts, books are being regularly maintained in the course of business and the entries alone are not sufficient enough to charge any person with liability.