SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(SC) 60

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, AMITAVA ROY, JJ.
COMMON CAUSE (A REGISTERED SOCIETY) AND OTHERS – PETITIONERS
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS – RESPONDENTS
Interlocutory Application Nos. 3 and 4 of 2017 In Writ Petition(Civil) No. 505 of 2015
Decided On : 11-01-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Adv., Prashant Bhushan, Pramod Dayal, Nikunj Dayal, Ms. Payal Dayal, Prashant Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva, Ms. Neha Rathi, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mukul Rohatgi, (Attorney General for India), Tushar Mehta, ASG, Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Abhinav Mukherji, Ms. Binu Tamta, (Contd.), Ms. Meenakshi Grover, Rajiv Rathore, M.K. Maroria, Ms. Sushma Suri, Braj Kishore Mishra, Amit Bhagat, Shekhar Kumar, C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv., G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Suyodhan Byrapaneni, Mohd. Wasay Khan, Ms. Filza Moonis, Bharat J. Joshi, Jagat Arora, Rajat Arora, Ms. Ritu Arora, Anuvrat Sharma, Advocates.
For the NCT of Delhi :- Chirag Shroff, Hemant Arya, Ms. Neha Shangaran, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Investigation cannot be ordered on basis of entries on loose papers/sheets.

Headnote:(a) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 34 – Entries in loose papers/sheets – No evidentiary value unless corroborated by independent evidence – Only regular account books have evidentiary value. (Para 17, 19, 20)

       (1998) 3 SCC 410 – Relied upon

       (b) Administration of justice – Police investigation – Direction for – Entries on loose papers/ sheets – Income tax department finding the entries doubtful – Investigation cannot be directed on basis of such entries. (Para 24, 27, 28)

       1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 – Relied upon

       (2014) 2 SCC 1 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       The issue raised in I.A. No. 3 supported by I.A. No.4 in the writ petition challenging appointment of Mr. K.V. Chaudhary as Central Vigilance Commissioner and Mr. T.M. Bhasin as Vigilance Commissioner is as to whether a case is made out to constitute SIT and direct investigation against the various functionaries/officers which are projected in Annexure A-8, A-9 and A-10 and other entries on loose sheets and further monitor the same.

       Finding of the Court:

       Investigation cannot be ordered on basis of entries on loose papers/sheets.

       Result: Applications dismissed.

ORDER

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, as to Interlocutory Application Nos. 3 and 4 of 2017 filed in Writ Petition(Civil) No.505 of 2015.

2. The writ petition has been filed by the Common Cause (A registered Society) and others for issuance of appropriate writ for setting aside the appointment made by the Union of India, of Respondent No.2 Mr. K.V. Chaudhary as Central Vigilance Commissioner and Mr. T.M. Bhasin as Vigilance Commissioner on various grounds as enumerated in the petition, pointing out that these persons are not of impeccable integrity.

3. In I.A. No.3/2016 it is averred that, Central Bureau of Investigation (in short 'the C.B.I.') conducted raid on the premises of Aditya Birla group industries in four cities on 15.10.2013, followed by another raid by the Income Tax Department on the very next day. The raid by the C.B.I. reportedly led to recovery of incriminating documents and unaccounted cash amounting to Rs. 25 crores. It is submitted that C.B.I. transferred the incriminating documents to the Income Tax Department. The laptop of Mr. Shubhendu Amitabh, Group Executive President was seized during the raid. An E-mail dated 16.11.2012 containing a cryptic entry was also recovered from the said laptop referring to political functionaries. When Mr. Amitabh was questioned about the transactions, he stated that "these were purely personal notes. Not meant for SMS or e-mail transmission. And the first note is only to note for my knowledge and consumption - a business development at Gujarat Alkali Chemicals" it does not relate to any political functionary. During investigation, top officials of the Birla Group admitted that large amounts of cash were routed by the Group through hawala. The Income Tax Department prepared a detailed appraisal report on the Hawala transactions. Some extracts of the report dated 27.2.2014 have been filed as Annexure A-5. A direction has already been issued by this Court to the CBI on 12.10.2015 to enquire into these, even though they might be unrelated to the Coal Block Allocation cases. The CBI has not taken any concrete action. The CBI is trying to protect the influential personalities named in the documents seized and is shielding powerful corporate entities. It has been alleged that Respondent No.2 has also tried to shield the offenders.

4. With respect to Sahara Group, it is averred that the Income Tax Department raided Sahara India Group offices in Delhi and Noida on 22.11.2014. During the raid, incriminating documents and cash amounting to Rs. 135 crores had been seized. Certain documents have been filed in the form of printouts of the Excel sheet showing cash receipt of over Rs. 115 crores and cash outflow of over Rs. 113 crores during a short period of 10 months. The random log suggests that cash was transferred to several important public figures. Copies of the random pages have been filed as Annexure A-8. The pages Annexure A-9 and A-10 have been filed which contain the proposal and regarding the actual payments which were made to large number of top political leaders of the country.

5. It is also averred that certain complaints to CBI, CBDT, CVC, SIT, Enforcement Directorate and Settlement Commissioner have been made but without avail. In spite of that, the Income Tax Settlement Commission gave immunity to the Sahara Group of Companies vide its order dated 11.11.2016 which has been filed along with I.A. No.4.

6. I.A. No.4 has been filed by the petitioner pursuant to the direction given by this Court to substantiate the documents filed along with I.A. No.3. I.A.No.4 contains more or less the same facts. Details have been given as to Birla Group that cash of Rs. 25 crores was not accounted for in the regular books of accounts of Aditya-Birla Group or another company and it is also stated that Mr. Anand Saxena told the Income Tax Department that he was responsible for handling the cash transactions and he had received cash from Mr. Jaluram in the range of Rs. 50,0










































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top