BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed on behalf of the Central Bureau of investigation being aggrieved by the order dated 30. 05. 1998 passed by the learned Special Judge whereby the respondents 1-5 were discharged of the offences under Section 120-B IPC, Section 7, 11, 12 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as also under Section 465 IPC.

( 2 ) AFTER filing of the revision petition, the respondent No. 1 passed away and as such, the present petition does not survive any further as against the respondent No. 1.

( 3 ) THE entire case relates to the entries in the diaries and files seized from the residence of accused/ respondent No. 4 (J. K. Jain) on 03. 05. 1991. Insofar as the respondents 2 and 5 are concerned, the following entries are being pressed into service by the prosecution.

S. No. File Diary No. MR No. Page No. and the period of accounting Name Amount in lacs D. Lal 50. 00 1 File No. 1 72/91 8 (POE from April 88 to March 90) 2 --do-- 72/91 31 (Detail of POE (SKJ) D. Lal 50. 00 3 Diary No. 2 68/91 7 (1. 2. 91 - 10. 2. 91) Pradeep 14. 35 4 Diary No. 1 71/91 11 (Feb. (91)) --do-- 14. 63700 5 File No. 2 73/91 16 ( Account from 1. 4. 90 " 31. 3. 91) --do-- 14. 63700 6 --do-- 73/91 43 (A/c for the month of Feb.) --do-- 14. 63700 7 --do-- 73/91 44 (A/c from 1. 2. 91 to 19. 2. 91) --do-- 14. 35

( 4 ) AN examination of the seven items mentioned above clearly indicates that the first two items purport to relate to the deceased/ respondent No. 1. They also relate to entries contained in MR 72/91. With regard to MR 72/91, the supreme Court, in the case of CBI v. V. C. Shukla and others: (1998) 3 SCC 410, held the same not to be a "book" for the purposes of section 34 of Indian evidence Act, 1872. The clear and categorical observation of the Supreme Court is at paragraph 18 of the said judgment, which reads as under:-"18. "book" ordinarily means a collection of sheets of paper or other material, blank, written, or printed, fastened or bound together so as to form a material whole. Loose sheets or scraps of paper cannot be termed as "book" for they can be easily detached and replaced. In dealing with the word "book" appearing in Section 34 in Mukundram v. Dayaram1 a decision on which both sides have placed reliance, the Court observed:"in its ordinary sense it signifies a collection of sheets of paper bound together in a manner which cannot be disturbed or altered except by tearing apart. The binding is of a kind which is not intended to be moveable in the sense of being undone and put together again. A collection of papers in a portfolio, or clip, or strung together on a piece of twine which is intended to be untied at will, would not, in ordinary English, be called a book. . . . I think the term 'book' in Section 34 aforesaid may properly be taken to signify, ordinarily, a collection of sheets of paper bound together with the intention that such binding shall be permanent and the papers used collectively in one volume. It is easier however to say what is not a book for the purposes of section 34, and I have no hesitation in holding that unbound sheets of paper, in whatever quantity, though filled up with one continuous account, are not a book of account within the purview of Section 34. "we must observe that the aforesaid approach is in accord with good reasoning and we are in full agreement with it. Applying the above tests it must be held that the two spiral notebooks (MR 68/91 and MR 71/91) and the two spiral pads (MR 69/91 and MR 70/91) are "books" within the meaning of Section 34, but not the loose sheets of papers contained in the two files ( MRs 72/91 and 73/91 ). "

( 5 ) BY virtue of paragraph 18 of the said Supreme Court judgment, the file bearing MR 73/91 is also precluded from being considered as a book of account. This leaves us with entries at serial No. 3 and 4 in the above table. Insofar as the en