2017 (1) TMI 1164 - SC - Income Tax

Corporate raids yielding loose paper sheets deemed inadmissible evidence under Section 34 lacking reliability for prosecution

Common Cause (A Registered Society) And Others Versus Union of India And Others

Common Cause (A Registered Society) And Others Versus Union of India And Others - [2017] 394 ITR 220, (2017) 11 SCC 731, 2017 INSC 48 The primary legal questions considered by the Court in this matter were:Whether the materials placed on record, including documents seized during raids on the Aditya Birla Group and Sahara Group, constituted sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and direction of investigation against various high-profile individuals, including constitutional functionaries.Whether the entries contained in loose papers, computer printouts, and electronic data could be considered admissible evidence under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act.Whether the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission granting immunity to the Sahara Group could be challenged on the basis of alleged incriminating evidence.Whether the principles laid down in prior Supreme Court decisions, including those relating to admissibility of evidence and the threshold for ordering investigation, applied to the facts of this case.Whether the Court should interfere at the interlocutory stage to direct investigation based on the materials presented.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Sufficiency and Admissibility of Materials to Warrant InvestigationThe Court examined the nature of the documents seized during raids on the Aditya Birla Group and Sahara Group. These included loose sheets, computer printouts, electronic data such as pen drives and hard disks, and alleged account entries reflecting large cash transactions and payments to political figures. The petitioners argued these documents demonstrated a prima facie case of cognizable offences, justifying the constitution of an SIT and investigation. They relied on precedents such as Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., which mandates investigation when a cognizable offence is prima facie made out.The respondents, including the Attorney General, countered that these documents were not regular books of account but random, loose papers lacking authenticity and reliability. They pointed to the findings of the Income Tax Settlement Commission, which had examined these documents and found them to be fabricated, non-genuine, and devoid of evidentiary value. The respondents relied heavily on the precedent of CBI v. V.C. Shukla, where the Court held that entries in loose papers or diaries not maintained as regular books of account are inadmissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act and cannot form the basis for criminal liability.The Court undertook a detailed examination of the legal framework concerning the admissibility of documents under Section 34. It reiterated the principles from V.C. Shukla that only entries in books of account regularly kept in the course of business are relevant and admissible. Loose sheets, diaries, or random papers, even if they contain incriminating entries, do not qualify as 'books' under Section 34 and are thus inadmissible. Further, even admissible entries in books of account are only corroborative and cannot alone establish liability without independent evidence.Applying this framework to the facts, the Court noted that the seized documents from both groups were not maintained in the regular course of business and were random and stray materials. The Income Tax Settlement Commission's findings further substantiated that these documents lacked authenticity and evidentiary value. Consequently, the Court held that the materials were legally inadmissible and unreliable to warrant investigation.2. Challenge to the Income Tax Settlement Commission OrderThe petitioners challenged the order of the Settlement Commission, which granted immunity to the Sahara Group, contending that the Commission ignored incriminating evidence and acted hastily. The Court considered the Settlement Commission's detailed findings, which concluded that the entries on loose papers and electronic data were fabricated and not maintained regularly, and hence had no evidentiary value. The Commission also found that the Income Tax Department failed to prove the nature and source of receipts or payments based on these documents.The Court observed that the Settlement Commission's order was a considered adjudication on the evidentiary value of the materials. Since the documents were found to be unreliable and inadmissible, the Court declined to interfere with the Settlement Commission's order or treat the documents as a basis for investigation.3. Application of Precedents and Legal Principles Regarding InvestigationThe Court referred extensively to the principles laid down in CBI v. V.C. Shukla and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. In V.C. Shukla, the Court emphasized the strict requirements for admissibility of account entries and the necessity of independent corroborative evidence to establish liability. In Bhajan Lal, the Court enumerated the circumstances under which an FIR or investigation can be quashed, including where allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence or are inherently improbable.Applying these principles, the Court found that the materials presented did not disclose a cognizable offence or satisfy the threshold to order investigation. The entries were not only inadmissible but also uncorroborated and unreliable. The Court cautioned against ordering investigations based on such legally unsustainable materials, especially against high constitutional functionaries, as it could lead to abuse of process and undermine democratic governance.4. Consideration of the Petitioners' Reliance on Lalita KumariThe petitioners invoked the decision in Lalita Kumari, which mandates registration of FIR and investigation upon prima facie satisfaction of a cognizable offence. The Court distinguished the present facts, observing that the decision presupposes the existence of some legally admissible and reliable material indicating commission of an offence. Here, the materials were inadmissible and lacked evidentiary value, and thus the principle in Lalita Kumari did not apply to justify a roving inquiry.5. Court's Approach to Ordering Investigation Against High-Profile IndividualsThe Court underscored the necessity of caution in ordering investigations against constitutional functionaries or persons of high integrity. It emphasized that investigations should not be initiated lightly on the basis of irrelevant or fabricated entries, as this could lead to misuse of the legal process and damage individual liberty and institutional independence. The Court insisted on the presence of cogent, admissible, and reliable evidence, supported by circumstances linking the accused to the alleged offence, before directing investigation.Conclusions on Issues:The documents seized from the Birla and Sahara Groups were not regular books of account but loose papers and electronic data lacking authenticity and reliability.Such documents are inadmissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act and cannot form the basis of criminal liability or investigation without independent corroborative evidence.The Income Tax Settlement Commission's findings that these documents were fabricated and lacked evidentiary value were upheld.The petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case of cognizable offence warranting investigation or constitution of an SIT.The Court declined to interfere with the Settlement Commission's order and refused to direct investigation based on the materials presented.Legal principles from V.C. Shukla and Bhajan Lal were applied to quash the interlocutory applications seeking investigation.Significant Holdings:The Court articulated the following crucial legal reasoning:'Loose sheets of papers are wholly irrelevant as evidence being not admissible under Section 34 so as to constitute evidence with respect to the transactions mentioned therein being of no evidentiary value. The entire prosecution based upon such entries which led to the investigation was quashed by this Court.''There has to be some relevant and admissible evidence and some cogent reason, which is prima facie reliable and that too, supported by some other circumstances pointing out that the particular third person against whom the allegations have been levelled was in fact involved in the matter or he has done some act during that period, which may have co-relations with the random entries.''We are constrained to observe that the Court has to be on guard while ordering investigation against any important constitutional functionary, officers or any person in the absence of some cogent legally cognizable material.''The materials should qualify the test as per the aforesaid decision [Bhajan Lal]. The complaint should not be improbable and must show sufficient ground and commission of offence on the basis of which registration of a case can be ordered.'The Court thus reaffirmed the principle that only documents maintained as regular books of account are admissible under Section 34, and even then, independent corroboration is necessary before attributing liability. It emphasized the need for caution and cogent evidence before ordering investigation, particularly against high-ranking officials, to prevent abuse of the legal process and protect constitutional governance.Ultimately, the Court dismissed the interlocutory applications seeking investigation and the constitution of a Special Investigation Team, holding that no case was made out on the basis of the materials presented.