Entries in books of account cannot be used to establish charges against accused persons without independent evidence, and statements of witnesses who have admitted to receiving payments as shown in the books cannot be used as independent evidence against other persons whose names are recorded in abbreviated forms or alphabets in the books.

( 1 ) THE Central Bureau of Investigation has filed nine separate revision petitions being revision Nos. 340/1997, 352/1997, 372/1997, 420/1997, 444/1997, 466/1997, 473/1997, 19/98 and 31/98 against the order passed by the Special Judge, New Delhi in C. C. Nos. 51/96, 12/96,-16/96,-42/96,-43/96, 37/9,6-38/96,-48/96,-52/96, 18/96,-56/96,-60/96,-58/96, 46/96,-47/96,-45/96,-36/96,-41/96, 40/96, 14/96, 59/96, 55/96, discharging the accused persons. The Jain brothers, namely, N. K. Jain, S. K. Jain and B. R. Jain and their employee J. K. Jain have filed in all eight revision petitions being revision Nos. 184/1997, 185/1997, 186/1997, 187/1997, 222/1997, 223/1997, 224/1997 and 225/1997 against the orders passed by Shri V. B. Gupta, Special Judge, Delhi in C. C. Nos. 35/96, 57/96, directing framing of charges under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code and under Sections 7/12/13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short `the Act ) against them. By this order, I propose to dispose of the aforesaid criminal revision petitions.

( 2 ) A short conspectus of the case is that during the years 1988 to 1991, the Jain brothers, namely, S. K. Jain, B. R. Jain and N. K. Jain and their employee J. K. Jain entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves, the object of which was to receive unaccounted money and to disburse the same to their companies, friends, highly placed public servants and prominent political leaders including some Ministers and Government organisations in the Power and Steel Sectors of the Government of India to award contracts to different foreign bidders with the motive of getting illegal kickbacks from them. During the aforesaid period, the Jain brothers received the huge amounts, major portion of which came from foreign countries through Hawala channels as kickbacks. An account of receipt and disbursement of the tainted monies was maintained by the accused J. K. Jain in the diaries. On 3. 5. 1991, the CBI searched the premises of the accused J. K. Jain at G-36, Saket New Delhi in connection with the investigation of RC Case No. 5 (S)/91-SIU (V)/cbi/new Delhi and recovered besides other articles and documents, two diaries, two small note-books and two files containing details of receipts of various amounts from different sources recorded in the abbreviated digits and initials and details of payment to various persons recorded in similar fashion. According to the prosecution case, the Jain brothers had acted as middlemen in the award of certain bid projects in the Power and Steel Sectors of the Government of India to the different bidders. As per prosecution case, they had surreptitious dealings with politicians and influential public servants, whose names were recorded in the diaries and the files and that some of them had accepted illegal gratification from Jain brothers as reward for giving them and the companies they owned and managed various contracts. On such revelation, the CBI registered the case against petitioners of Criminal Revision Nos. 184/1997, 185/1997, 186/1997, 187/1997, 222/1997, 223/1997, 224/1997 and 225/1997 and the respondents of the Criminal Revision Nos. 340/1997, 352/1997, 372/1997, 420/1997, 444/1997, 466/1997, 473/1997, 19/98 and 31/98. Investigation pursuant to the said reports culminated into submission of separate charge-sheets against the aforesaid persons under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7/11/12/13 (2) (d) of the Act against them.

( 3 ) ON consideration of the materials collected by the CBI and after hearing the submissions of the parties, the learned Special Judge framed charges under Sections 120-B Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7/12/13 (3) (1) (d) of the Act against petitioners of the Criminal Revision Nos. 184/1997, 185/1997, 186/1997, 187/1997, 222/1997, 223/1997, 224/1997 and 225/1997 and discharged the respondents of the remaining revisions mentioned above. Feeling aggrieved by the afo