LexCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus V.C. SHUKLA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
A
v.
V.C. SHUKLA AND ORS.
MARCH 2, 1998
[M.K. MUKHERJEE, S.P. KURDUKAR AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ]
B
Evidence Act, I 872 :
Section 34-lngredients of-Two parts of the Section-Explanation
of-"Entries in books of account regularly kept in course of business"- C
Meaning and import of-Held: Ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning
has to be given when neither the context nor any principle of construction
requires their restrictive meaning-Interpretation of Statutes.
Section 34-Jain hawala diaries-Entries in-Held : Admissible under
S. 34-But file containing loose sheets of paper cannot be termed as "book" D
t
and entries therein not admissible under S.34.
Section 34-Books of account "regularly kept"-Meaning of-Held :
Whether a book of accounts regularly kept or not depends on the nature of
occupation-System of accounting and contemporaneity in making entries E
may differ-It is not necessary that an entry must be made at or about the
time of transactions-Further, the system in which the books are regularly
kept affects their probative value and not of their· admissibility as a relevant
fact under S.34.
Section 34-Rationale of-Entries in book of account-Probative value F
of-"Such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any
person with liability"-Meaning of-Held: Entries though relevant are only
corroborative evident-Independent evidence regatding the trustworthiness
of those entries necessary to [IX liability-In the circumstance of the case,
entries made in the Jain hawala diaries though admissible under S.34,
truthjitlness thereof not proved by independent evidence.
G
Section 34-"Book "-Meaning of-Held : Spiral notebook/spiral pads
are "books" but not loose sheets.
Section IO-Co-conspirator-Statements, acts or writing of-Against
the other-Admissiblity of-Conditions for-Held : A reasonable ground H
1153
1154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] I S.C.R.
A must be there to believe about conspiracy to commit an offence or actionable
wrong-Entries in .Jain notebooks-There is no evidence to show existence
of any conspiracy between the .fains and the persons referred to in the
notebook-Hence, S.10 not applicable-Penal Code, 1860.
Sections 17 to 21-Admission and confession-Distinction between-
B Held: Statement. oral or documentary, made by an accused as admission may
be proved against him but not against others who are being jointly tried with
him unless it amounts to a confession-Assuming that the entries in account
books are admissions made in .Jain. notebooks, such entries may be proved
only against the .fains-Moreover, prosecution case regarding conspiracy
C between .fains and others cannot stand as there is no prima facie case
against the others as being parties to such conspiracy since in a conspiracy
there must be two parties-Therefore, the statements cannot be proved as
admission of the .fains of such conspiracy.
D
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 : Section 12.
Abatment by aiding-Held: Act so aided should have been committed-
{
Persons referred to in .Jain diaries did not commit any offence under S. 7-
Hence, the question of the .fains' committing the offence under S.12 does not
arise-Penal Code, 1860, S.17(iii) Expln. 2.
E
Words and Phrases :
"Account", "books of account" "business" and "regularly kept"-
Meaning of-In the context of S.34 of the Evidence Act. 1872.
"Admission" and "confession"-Meaning of-In the context of Ss. 17
F to 21 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
The appellant-Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), in 'the course of
the search of the premises of one J.K Jain, recovered, besides other articles
and documents, two diaries, two small notebooks and two files containing
details of receipts of various amounts from different sources recorded in
G abbreviated forms of digits and initials and details of payments of various
persons recorded in similar fashion. Preliminary investigation taken up by
the CBI to decode and comprehend those entries revealed payments amounting
to Rs. 65.47 crores, out of which 53.5 crores had been illegally transferred
from abroad through hawala channels, during the years 1988 to 1991 to its
H persons including politicians, some of whom were members of either House
I l
C.B.I. v. V.C. SHUKLA
ll55
of Parliament during the relevant period, officials of Government and Public A
Sector Undertakings, and friends of S.K Jain, B.R Jain and N.K Jain who
were three brothers carryiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.