Delhi HC erred, substantive evidence exists in hawala case:CBI

The CBI says that the way in which the High Court heard appeals and scrutinised the evidence, it seemed as if the final trial in the case was being conducted. This approach “totally vitiated the entire judgement,” the SLP states.

Going into the relevant sections of the Evidence Act, the CBI denies the High Court’s charge that the documents recovered were not proper books of accounts by saying that it was “unreasonable” for the courts to look for the same attributes as they would in any other legal business. The SLP says: “It is the nature of the business which would dictate the manner in which books of accounts of the same business may be kept including the intervals at which the entries are to be made.” The diaries and files, the CBI has stated, were evidence not only against the Jains but also against the co-conspirators. It states, “The diaries are a substantive piece of evidence against all the accused persons on the basis of which conviction could be recorded against all the accused persons without any further corroboration.”

However, the petition does list some corroboration which the CBI managed to collect. The CBI says it relied on the confessional statements made by employees of S K Jain as well as the evidence it got about how the hawala dealer used to shower politicians with favors and gifts. The example of the Jains gifting a Honda Accord car to Pradeep Singh, grandson of former Deputy Prime Minister, Devi Lal, finds a mention.

The SLP claims there was no confusion whatsoever about the payments totalling Rs 58.4 crore shown to be paid by the Jain’s to 114 persons. The payments were listed in three categories “political payments”, “departmental payments” and “other expenses” and none of the entries overlapped. The CBI feels there was “consistent continuity” in these payments and that the three groups of payments “clinch the correct identity of the persons concerned and also indicate the purpose for which the payments were made.”

On the specific case against the two politicians discharged by the High Court, the SLP states that, here too, there were no contradictions. In the case of former Union minister V C Shukla, payments were made on eight different occasions and there was evidence to show that he was well acquainted with the Jains.

Advani was given money on two occasions, says the SLP, and the absence of his name from one monthly account raises no doubts. “All the entries and the diaries and files ought to be seen together and not in isolation,” the SLP alleges, “the second payment of Rs 25 lakhs is evidence of subsequent continuation of the account of the accused which also probabalises the first payment of Rs 35 lakhs.”

Thus, the CBI’s final argument is that the Supreme Court should follow what is feels is the “crux of law”: for the purpose of framing of charges, if there is a strong suspicion to presume that the accused might have committed the offense, the charges must be framed.