Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Heard Sri Ch. Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri V. Rohit, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - complainant - ACB.

7. Both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel for respondent No.1-complainant argued in a similar manner, as the State itself filed the petition under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. through the Special Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of the prosecution basing on G.O.Rt.No.1678, Home (Special) Department, dated 25.08.2023. The learned senior counsel submitted that basing Dr.GRR, J crlrc_24_2024 on the names mentioned by the liquor syndicate that they paid mamools to the petitioner, the case was registered. The Special Public Prosecutor by taking into consideration all the circumstances pertaining to filing of the charge sheet and the G.O. issued by the Government to withdraw the prosecution orders against the petitioner-accused filed the petition under Section 321 Cr.P.C. The trial court failed to observe that the Government had issued G.O. for not any extraneous consideration. There were no malafides in issuing the G.O.. The application was made in good faith without any extraneous or political considerations. The Government need not give any elaborate reasons in the G.O. while giving orders for withdrawing the prosecution and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Kerala Vs. K. Ajith & Ors. 1 and of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in K.V.V. Krishna Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. 2 and of the High Court of Delhi in L.K. Advani Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 3 on the aspect that entries in dairies disclosing acceptance of payment of illegal gratification by petitioners, the said diaries not being books of accounts do not come within the ambit of Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act. The alleged entries in diaries and loose sheets were not admissible in evidence unless there is corroborative evidence.

14. In L.K. Advani Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (3 supra), which was similar to the facts of the present case, it was alleged that:

"Jain brothers lobbied with different public servants and government organizations in the power and steel sectors of the Government of India for securing various contracts with an intention of getting illegal kickbacks from them and that they received amounts from foreign countries through hawala channels as kickbacks from the foreign bidders of certain projects and making payments to influential political leaders and public servants of high status and accepting official favours from them. Some note books, diaries and files were alleged to be seized from the residence of the one J.KJain during the course of his house search and it was noted in the dairies that they paid certain amounts to Shri L.K.Advani and Shri L.K.Advani along with others was charged for the offences under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988."

Dr.GRR, J crlrc_24_2024

102. There is no evidence with regard to the monies which are alleged to have been received by Jains for the purpose of disbursement. There is no evidence with regard to the disbursement of the amount. Then there is no evidence with regard to the fact to prove prima facie that the petitioners i.e. Shri L.K.Advani and Shri V.C. Shukla accepted the alleged amounts as a motive or reward for showing favour or disfavour to any person and that the said favours and disfavours were shown in the discharge of their duties as public servants as contemplated by S.7 of the Act. Thus, the Court has to presume the above facts in the absence of any evidence in connection therewith to frame charges against the petitioners and quashed the charges against them."