TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the diaries, note books, spiral pads and loose sheets were admissible and sufficient under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; (ii) whether the entries were relevant under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as statements in furtherance of a conspiracy; (iii) whether the entries could be used as admissions under Sections 17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to sustain the charges under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Issue (i): whether the diaries, note books, spiral pads and loose sheets were admissible and sufficient under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Analysis: Section 34 requires that the entry be in a book of account regularly kept in the course of business. Loose sheets are not books, but the spiral note books and pads were treated as books. The Court held that the expression "book of account" and "business" are of general import and must receive their ordinary meaning. A record of monetary transactions, if systematically maintained and balanced, may qualify as a book of account even where the underlying activity is illegal. However, even where Section 34 applies, entries are only relevant evidence and cannot by themselves fasten liability; independent evidence of the truth of the transactions is required.
Conclusion: MR 71/91 was a book of account regularly kept in the course of business and its entries were admissible under Section 34, but the remaining loose sheets and some other notebooks did not qualify; in any event the entries alone were insufficient to charge the respondents with liability.
Issue (ii): whether the entries were relevant under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as statements in furtherance of a conspiracy.
Analysis: Section 10 applies only when there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together. The surrounding materials did not furnish prima facie evidence of a conspiracy involving the respondents. The statements and circumstances relied upon showed, at most, acquaintance and social contact, not a reasonable ground to believe in a common design. Once the foundational requirement failed, the writings could not be admitted against the respondents under Section 10.
Conclusion: The entries were not admissible under Section 10 against the respondents.
Issue (iii): whether the entries could be used as admissions under Sections 17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to sustain the charges under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Analysis: Statements in account books may amount to admissions against the maker, but a statement which falls short of a confession is not evidence against co-accused. Since no prima facie case was made out that the respondents were parties to any conspiracy or had committed the substantive offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the alleged entries could not be treated as admissions to support charges of conspiracy or abetment against the Jain brothers. Abetment by conspiracy or by intentional aid could not stand when the principal offence itself was not prima facie established.
Conclusion: The entries could not be used as admissions to sustain the charges against the respondents.
Final Conclusion: The prosecution material was insufficient to justify framing or continuation of the charges, and the quashing of the proceedings was upheld, while the wider question whether Members of Parliament are "public servants" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was left open.
Ratio Decidendi: Entries in a regularly kept book of account are admissible under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but they do not by themselves prove liability; independent evidence is essential, and Section 10 cannot operate unless a prima facie conspiracy is first shown.
TaxTMI 
