Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. He would further submit that the crux of the allegation against the applicant is that he was involved in running an alleged extortion racket wherein an amount of Rs 25/- per ton of coal was extorted for its transportation out of the coal mine fields However, the offence of extortion under Section 384 of IPC was not alleged in the Bengaluru FIR initially upon its registration on 12.07.2022 and was only added subsequently on 03.09 2022 Further, after due investigation, the Bengaluru Police dropped the offence of Section 384 IPC from its charge-sheet filed on 08.06. 2023 and even the concerned court in Bengaluru only took cognizance of offences under Sections 353 and 204 IPC and not of Section 384 of IPC. Furthermore, even the EOW, Raipur did not include Section 384 of IPC in its FIR registered on 17.01.2024. Thus, it is clear that the offence of extortion under Section 384 of IPC is not made out against the applicant, therefore, the very basis of the entire case against the applicant is non-existent. He would further submit that the applicant is not involved in any extortion racket and has neither demanded nor received any unlawful amount from any person as alleged levy for transportation of coal out of the coal mine fields. The applicant has also not indulged in any activity relating to the alleged proceeds of crime and the applicant has neither given any money to any politician or any State functionary nor caused any obstruction in the discharge of duties by a public servant. He would further submit that it is settled law that mere diary entries cannot be read into evidence and the same are inadmissible in law especially without independent evidence of their trustworthiness and the same cannot be relied upon as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla [(1998) 3 SCC 410], L.K. Advani Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [Criminal Revision Petition No. 265 of 1996], Common Cause Vs. Union of India [(1998) 3 SCC 410].