1998 (3) TMI 675 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the entries in the documents fulfil the requirements so as to be admissible in evidence? Held that - From a combined reading of the all Sections it is manifest that an oral or documentary statement made by a party or his authorised agent, suggesting any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact may be proved against a party t the proceeding or his authorised agent as 'admission' but, apart form exceptional cases (as contained in Section 21), such a statement cannot be proved by or on their behalf. While on this point the distinction between 'admission' and concession' needs to be appreciated. In absence of any definition of 'confession' in the Act judicial opinion, as to its exact meaning, was not unanimous until the judicial Committee made an authoritative pronouncement. It is thus clear that under the third clause when a person abets by aiding, the act so aided should have been committed in order to make such aiding an offence. In other words, unlike the first tow clauses the third clause applies to a case where the offence is committed. Since in the instant case the prosecution intended to prove the abetment of a Jains by aiding (and not by any act falling under the first two clauses adverted to above ) and since we have earlier found that no prima facie case has been made out against Shri Advani and Shri Shukla of their having committed the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, the question of Jains' committing the offence under Section 12 and , for that matter, their admission in respect thereof - does not arise. Incidentally, we may mention that the abetment by conspiracy would not also arise here in view of our earlier discussion. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of evidence under Sections 34, 10, and 17 of the Evidence Act.
2. Interpretation of "books of account" and "business" under Section 34.
3. Probative value of entries in books of account.
4. Applicability of Section 10 regarding conspiracy.
5. Definition of "public servant" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Evidence under Sections 34, 10, and 17 of the Evidence Act:
The central issue was whether the diaries and files recovered from J.K. Jain's premises could be admitted as evidence under Sections 34, 10, and 17 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution argued that the entries in these documents were admissible under these sections, while the respondents contended otherwise.

- Section 34: The High Court held that the documents were not "books of account" regularly kept in the course of business, and hence not admissible under Section 34. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that MR 71/91 was a "book of account" as it recorded monetary transactions duly reckoned and maintained regularly in the course of business. However, the Court emphasized that such entries alone could not be sufficient to charge any person with liability without independent evidence corroborating the entries.

- Section 10: The High Court found no prima facie evidence of a conspiracy, making the entries inadmissible under Section 10. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the statements from witnesses did not provide reasonable grounds to believe that a conspiracy existed involving the respondents.

- Section 17: The Supreme Court acknowledged that entries could be considered "admissions" under Section 17, but clarified that such admissions could only be used against the Jains and not against Shri Advani or Shri Shukla.

2. Interpretation of "Books of Account" and "Business" under Section 34:
The Supreme Court examined whether the diaries and files could be considered "books of account" and whether they were kept in the "course of business."

- The Court concluded that the spiral notebooks (MR 68/91 and MR 71/91) and pads (MR 69/91 and MR 70/91) were "books" within the meaning of Section 34, but not the loose sheets of paper.
- The term "business" was interpreted broadly to include any systematic activity aimed at economic gain, even if illegal. The Court found that the activities of the Jain brothers constituted "business" and that MR 71/91 was regularly kept in the course of this business.

3. Probative Value of Entries in Books of Account:
The Court emphasized that entries in books of account, even if admissible, required independent evidence to corroborate their trustworthiness.

- The Court noted that the prosecution failed to provide independent evidence to support the entries in MR 71/91, making them insufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla.
- The statements of some witnesses who admitted receiving payments were not considered independent evidence against the respondents.

4. Applicability of Section 10 Regarding Conspiracy:
The Court analyzed whether the entries could be admitted under Section 10 to prove a conspiracy.

- The Court found no prima facie evidence of a conspiracy involving the respondents, as required under Section 10.
- The statements from witnesses did not provide reasonable grounds to believe that a conspiracy existed, making the entries inadmissible under this section.

5. Definition of "Public Servant" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
The Court did not delve into whether Members of Parliament were "public servants" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as it found no prima facie case against the respondents.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the High Court that no prima facie case was made out against the respondents. The Court kept open the question of whether Members of Parliament could be prosecuted as "public servants" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.