Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. It is significant to mention that so far as the entry made at page 8 (MR-72/91) of Rs. 5 lacs to Shri Sharad Yadav is concerned, facts of the present case are in pari materia with the case instituted against Shri L.K. Advani. The specific allegations in the charge sheet filed against Shri L.K. Advani and Jain brothers were that he received a sum of Rs. 25 lacs from Jain brothers during his tenure as a Member of Parliament (besides a sum of Rs. 35 lacs which was received by him while he was not a Member of Parliament). The entry about payment of Rs. 25 lacs to Shri L.K. Advani was made at page 8 of MR-72/91. Allegations were also made in the charge-sheet that during the years 1988 to 1991, Jain brothers entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves, the object of which was to receive unaccounted money and to disburse the same to their companies, friends and other persons including influential public servants and political leaders; that in pursuance of the said conspiracy, S.K. Jain lobbied with various public servants, Union Ministers and influential politicians to persuade them to award contracts to different foreign bidders with the motive of getting illegal kickbacks from them; that during the aforesaid period, the Jain brothers received Rs. 59,12,11,685/- major portion of which came from foreign countries through Hawala channels as kickbacks from the foreign bidders of certain projects of power sector undertakings and the balance within the country. On these allegations, learned Special Judge framed charges under Section 120-B, IPC and Sections 7/12/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Shri L.K. Advani and Jain brothers including J.K. Jain.

8. Assailing the above order/charges, Shri L.K. Advani and others moved this Court by filing petitions under Section 482, Cr.P.C., which were allowed and the charges were quashed vide decision reported in LJC. Advani v. CBI, 1997 (41) DR 274. While quashing the said charges, my learned Brother Shamim J. held that : (1) the documents seized in the case were neither books of accounts not kept in the regular course of business and even if they were admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act, they were not, in view of the plain language of the section, sufficient enough to fasten the liability on the person, against whom they were sought to be used; (ii) besides the alleged entries in the diaries and the loose sheets there was no other evidence and so the entries would not further the case of the prosecution; (iii) the materials collected during investigation did not raise a reasonable ground to believe that a conspiracy existed and Shri L.K. Advani and Jain brothers were parties thereto and, therefore, those documents would not be admissible under Section 10 of the Evidence Act; (iv) the documents seized in the case, if admitted under Section 17 of the Evidence Act, could be used against Jain brothers only and not against Shri L.K. Advani and Shri V.C. Shukla; (v) the production and proof of the documents by themselves would not furnish evidence of the truth of their contents; and (vi) during investigation CBI did not examine any witness or collect materials to prove the contents of the said documents. On these premises, Shamim, J. quashed the charges and discharged Shri L.K. Advani and Shri V.C. Shukla. The CBI unsuccessfully challenged the said order of discharge before the Supreme Court. (See C.B.I. v. V.C. Shukla and Ors., . Upholding the order of discharge, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the entry in one of the loose sheets (sheet No. 8-MR-72/91) about the alleged payment of money to Shri L.K. Advani cannot be pressed into service to frame charge against Shri L.K. Advani. I may usefully excerpt the following observations of their Lordships :