Supreme Court 2017: Loose Sheets Not Evidence - Common Cause vs UOI DismissesSIT Plea In Birla Sahara Case. The Supreme Court in Common Cause vs Union Of Indiaon 11.01.2017 dismissed IA seeking SIT investigation into alleged payments in Birla andSahara diaries. The Court held that loose sheets, excel printouts, and random entries arenot admissible under Section 34 Evidence Act. The Court relied on CBI vs V.C. Shuklaand Bhajan Lal. This blog explains Common Cause 11.01.2017 on evidence law andinvestigation.
Facts: Birla Sahara Diaries And Allegations. The Supreme Court in Common Causevs UOI para 3: IA 3/2016 alleged CBI raid on Aditya Birla Group 15.10.2013. RecoveredRs 25 cr unaccounted cash. Laptop had email dated 16.11.2012 with cryptic entry.Officials admitted hawala routing.The Supreme Court in Common Cause vs UOI para 4:IA alleged IT raid on Sahara 22.11.2014. Seized Rs 135 cr cash. Excel sheets showed Rs115 cr receipt, Rs 113 cr outflow. Random log suggested payment to public figures.Annexures A-8, A-9, A-10.The Supreme Court in Common Cause vs UOI para 7: Alsoalleged payment of Rs 7.5 cr for "Project-J – Environment & Forest". 13 Birla projectssanctioned by MOEF between 2011-2013.The Supreme Court in Common Cause vs UOI:Prayer: Constitute SIT and monitor investigation. Petitioners cited Lalita Kumari -bounden duty to investigate cognizable offence.
Law: V.C. Shukla On Admissibility Of Loose Sheets. The Supreme Court in CommonCause vs UOI para 16-18: Relied on CBI vs V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410. "Loose sheetsof papers are wholly irrelevant as evidence being not admissible under Section 34...notin form of Books of Accounts regularly kept".The Supreme Court in Common Cause vsUOI: Section 34 requires: Entry in "book", "book of account", "regularly kept in course ofbusiness". Loose sheets can be "easily detached and replaced". Not a "book".TheSupreme Court in Common Cause vs UOI para 19: Quoted V.C. Shukla: "Book ordinarilymeans collection of sheets...bound together...Loose sheets or scraps cannot be termedas book".The Supreme Court in Common Cause vs UOI para 20: Even if admissible,entries in books of account are "not by themselves sufficient to charge any person".Need "independent evidence of transaction".The Supreme Court in Common Cause vsUOI para 22: Settlement Commission in Sahara case also held: transactions "notgenuine", "no evidentiary value", "not comply with Evidence Act".Court's Reasoning: No Investigation On Inadmissible Material. The Supreme Courtin Common Cause vs UOI para 21: "Court has to be on guard while orderinginvestigation against constitutional functionary...in absence of cogent legallycognizable material".The Supreme Court in Common Cause vs UOI: "If we do so,investigation can be ordered against any person...on basis of irrelevant or inadmissibleentry falsely made by unscrupulous person".The Supreme Court in Common Cause vsUOI para 25: Lalita Kumari not applicable. That is for cognizable offence withadmissible material. "Roving inquiry cannot be ordered on legally unsustainablematerial".The Supreme Court in Common Cause vs UOI para 26-27: Cited State ofHaryana vs Bhajan Lal: FIR can be quashed if allegations "absurd and inherentlyimprobable". Materials here "not good enough to constitute offences".The SupremeCourt in Common Cause vs UOI para 28-29: Dismissed IA 3 and 4. No case made out forinvestigation.
Conclusion
Common Cause vs Union Of India 11.01.2017 is landmark on common cause vsunion of india birla sahara loose sheets supreme court 2017. Supreme Court held thatloose papers, excel sheets, and diaries not kept in regular books are inadmissible underSection 34 Evidence Act. Court refused SIT probe. Court balanced need to investigatecorruption with need to protect liberty from frivolous FIRs. As the law stands, evidencemust meet Evidence Act standards before investigation is ordered. The Supreme Court’sruling in Common Cause is authority on evidentiary value of documents.
