Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(vi) (1993) 3 SCC 609 Ajay Agarwal vs. UOI (Para 24-25).

(vii) (1977)4 SCC 540 Yash Pal Mittal vs. State (Para 9).

12. Controverting the submissions of learned counsel for the NIA, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the documents about procurement of arms or ammunition or visit to China or establishing foothold in China or conspiracy for foreign support for arms from China or extortion activity of the appellant do not in any way refer to the name of the appellant. Even if name of the appellant was taken to be mentioned in the statements of transactions, there was no evidence to prove the said transactions and entries by itself were not enough to convict the appellant. The statements of witnesses who had made confession about their own involvement in giving funds to UNLF made them also co-accused and their statements were covered by Section 30 of the Evidence Act. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'Ble Supreme Court in Nishi Kant Jha v. State of Bihar [AIR 1969 sc 422] to submit that if confessional statement was self-inculpatory, the same was admissible which will be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and self-exculpatory part could not be relied upon to convict the appellant in view of Section 30 of the Evidence Act in absence of any other evidence. The charge of conspiracy could be sustained only with any other substantive offence as held in State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT v. Nalini and others [1999 5 SCC 253 para 42]. Reliance was also placed on judgment in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru [(2005) 11 SCC 600], to the effect that theory of agency under Section 10 of the Evidence Act was not applicable to charge a conspiracy under Section 120B IPC. The appellant could not, in these circumstances, be convicted for the offences, if any, by the UNLF. In the charge-sheet no offence of the UNLF to which the appellant may have conspired has been specified.