Evidence Act Section 34: Supreme Court 2017 Rejects Birla Sahara Diaries InCommon Cause Case. The Supreme Court in Common Cause vs Union Of India11.01.2017 dealt with request for SIT probe based on documents seized in Birla andSahara raids. The Court held that the material was "random sheets" and not "books ofaccount". Therefore not admissible. This blog explains the evidence law in CommonCause vs UOI.
The Allegations And The Material. The Supreme Court in Common Cause vs UOI:Birla: Email mentioning political functionary, hawala entries. Sahara: Excel sheets withnames of public figures.The Supreme Court in Common Cause vs UOI: Petitionersargued Lalita Kumari: If cognizable offence disclosed, must register FIR.The SupremeCourt in Common Cause vs UOI: Attorney General argued material is "random sheetsand loose papers" with "no evidentiary value". Relied on V.C. Shukla.
Section 34 Evidence Act Explained. The Supreme Court in Common Cause vs UOIpara 17: Section 34: Entries in books of account regularly kept are relevant. But "shallnot alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person".The Supreme Court in CommonCause vs UOI para 18: "Book" = bound collection. Not loose sheets. Cited Mukundram vsDayaram: "Unbound sheets...are not a book of account".The Supreme Court in CommonCause vs UOI: Spiral notebooks = book. Loose files = not book.
Court's Concern: Misuse Of Process. The Supreme Court in Common Cause vs UOIpara 21: "No democracy can survive if investigations are lightly set in motion againstimportant constitutional functionaries on basis of fictitious entries".The Supreme Courtin Common Cause vs UOI: Need "cogent reason, prima facie reliable, supported by othercircumstances”. The Supreme Court in Common Cause vs UOI para 24: SettlementCommission already rejected Sahara documents as "fabricated, non-genuine".Bhajan Lal Principles Applied. The Supreme Court in Common Cause vs UOI para 26:Quoted Bhajan Lal: Court can quash FIR if allegations "do not prima facie constituteoffence" or are "absurd".The Supreme Court in Common Cause vs UOI: Applied sametest to request for investigation. Found material legally inadmissible.
Conclusion
Common Cause vs Union Of India clarifies section 34 evidence act loose sheetsadmissible supreme court law. Supreme Court 11.01.2017 held that loose papers seizedin raids cannot be basis for SIT without corroboration. Court upheld V.C. Shukla anddistinguished Lalita Kumari. As the law stands, book of account must be regularlymaintained. Random entries have no evidentiary value. The Supreme Court’s ruling inCommon Cause protects against fishing expeditions.
