Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. Even on merits ED has no case against the applicant. As per supplementary charge sheet, the alleged POC identified qua the applicant is to the tune of Rs.89.04 crores. The figure of Rs.89.04 crores is based on inadmissible evidence such as handwritten registers, diaries and vouchers maintained by Bamapada Dey, Rabin Kalai and Sanu Mallick (aides of Anup Majee) at: (a) Bhamuria office; and (b) IOCL Petrol Pump of Anup Majee. The diaries and registers are not proper 'books of accounts' under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('Act 1872') to be admissible in evidence and have not been maintained in the ordinary course of business. Vouchers based on which some of alleged entries were made in the registers are missing. Authors of diaries deny having any knowledge of the transactions and stated that entries were made on instructions of Anup Majee or Bamapada Dey and therefore entries are not proved in accordance with law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in L.K. Advani v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1997 SCC OnLine Del 382, to argue that there is a difference between a proper book of account under Section 34 of Act 1872 and an ordinary diary. Reliance is also placed for this proposition on Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla and Others, (1998) 3 SCC 410. Diaries and registers have interpolations and overwritings. Moreover, during the relevant period 09.09.2018 to 08.11.2019, applicant was in judicial custody. Bamapada Dey has stated that the monies were received in the said period through Tapas Maji, who denied meeting Bamapada Dey or receiving any payment from him.