Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

THE PRECEDENT:

22(A). In Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C.Shukla [1998(3) SCC 410], which is otherwise called as "JAIN HAWALA DIARY" Case, the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether on account of the entries made in the books of Jain Brothers with regard to the payments made to Sri.L.K.Advani and Shri.V.C.Shukla, the then members of Parliament, criminal prosecution can be launched against them. The Supreme Court found that the entire edifice of the prosecution case was built on the diaries and files and the related entries. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering elaborately Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, indicated that even if the book of account has been regularly kept in the course of business, still it would not be sufficient to frame charges against the alleged beneficiaries. The Supreme Court said:

RELEVANCY OF V.C.SHUKLA AND SAHARA CASE:

24. In V.C.Shukla's case, the CBI investigated the matter and filed the final report, resulting in taking cognizance by the Special Court. The charge framed against Sri.V.C.Shukla was quashed by the High Court and it was confirmed by the Supreme Court. The order framing charge against Sri.L.K.Advani was set aside by the High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court. In Sahara and Aditya Birla Case, the Supreme Court negatived the request even to direct the Special Investigating Team of CBI to register a case and hold enquiry. In the present case, the allegation against the fifth respondent is not that he received money directly from the Gutkha Manufacturer. The entries indicate the payment made to an intermediary and only on that basis, the partner of the Gutkha Manufacturing Concern in his statement given to the Income Tax Department stated that money was given to the Commissioner of Police. The intermediary has denied such payment to the Police. In case the yardstick adopted in V.C.Shukla and Sahara case is followed, it can very well be said that the alleged material against the fifth respondent is weak and inadmissible. The Vigilance enquiry is still pending. It is too premature to arrive at a definite conclusion on the basis of available materials that money was paid to the fifth respondent. In any case, the incriminating materials seized by the Income Tax Department would not be sufficient to declare that the fifth respondent is unfit to hold the post of Director General of Police.