Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

27. Mr. Panda further submitted that in the present case the SD had, after analysing the relevant entries in the mother diary, come to the conclusion that they did pertain to receipt of money transactions and foreign exchange conversion transactions. Further in the V.C. Shukla case, the Supreme Court had only dealt with the culpability of Mr. V.C. Shukla and Mr. L.K. Advani. As far as the Jains were concerned, the Supreme Court had clearly held that the entries could be taken to be admissions, provided that they related to any fact in issue. He further submitted that the entries at Serial No. 5 in the mother diary should be read along with other entries and in particular entries on page 9 which even the Supreme Court understood to be one pertaining to the Jains.

called 'admissions' in relation to the entries by Mr. J.K. Jain in his statement under Section 40 FERA cannot be used against Mr. L.K. Advani or Mr. V.C. Shukla. It was, however, clarified that they could be proved against the Jains as admissions under Section 18 read with Section 21 IEA provided they relate to „any fact in issue or relevant fact.‟ The initial burden of proving that the entries related to „any fact in issue or relevant fact‟ was on the ED. This it could have discharged by placing before the SD credible substantive evidence gathered through independent investigation conducted abroad and here. The above entries in the diaries were at best corroborative and not substantive evidence. By themselves such entries were insufficient to prove the allegations against Mr. S.K. Jain in SCN No. IX.