hawala case.
Pronouncing the verdict in a packed courtroom, Justice
Mohammad Shamim ruled that there was not enough material on record
to justify the framing of charges of criminal conspiracy and
acceptance of illegal gratification against the two leaders by the
special hawala court.
The judge also quashed the charges framed against the key
accused, the Jain brothers, in these two cases.
Counsel for Advani, Shukla and the Jain brothers had argued
during the almost-month-long hearing that the CBI cases were based
only on some entries in the Jain diaries, which were not
corroborated by any other evidence or witnesses's statements.
The CBI had charged Advani and Shukla with receiving Rs 3.5 million and
Rs 3.8 million respectively in 'illegal gratification' from
the Jain brothers while serving as public servants between 1988 and
1991.
Senior counsel Ram Jethmalani appearing for Advani and senior
counsel R K Anand representing Shukla had contended that the CBI
had failed to bring on record any evidence regarding these alleged
payments and in the absence of any such material, Additional
Sessions Judge V B Gupta had erred in holding that the Jain diaries
provided sufficient material at the stage of framing of charges.
Counsel had argued that with the CBI accepting that there was no
direct evidence against these two leaders, it was pointless to go
through the motions of a trial.
Anand and senior counsel Kapil Sibal and Rajendar Singh,
appearing for the Jains, had also averred that Shukla was an MP
at the relevant time, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, under
which the charges had been framed, was not applicable to
legislators.
The CBI counsel, Gopal Subramaniam, had,
however, argued that there was an ''inbuilt coherence and
authenticity'' in the Jain diaries, which recorded a detailed
account of receipt and payment of money by S K Jain, B R
Jain, N K Jain and their employee J K Jain.
He had submitted that the court should take a ''cumulative
view'' of the material and also keep in mind that the CBI had
recovered about Rs 4 million of unaccounted money from the Jain
brothers, which was close to what the diaries had shown as the
balance left from their various transactions.
Subramaniam had also contended that legislators were deemed
to be public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act even
if there was no appointing authority whose prior sanction was
mandatory before prosecuting them.
Juustice Shamim, however, ruled that the
Jain diaries are not legally admissible evidence under
section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The judge said the diaries were admissible as evidence
only against the diarists, and not against a third party.
In a landmark conclusion, Justice Shamim held that
legislators are public servants under the Prevention of Corruption
Act 1988, and that no sanction was required for their prosecution.
He further observed that the CBI had itself stated that it did
not have legal evidence to prove the contents of the diary.
Justice Shamim then ruled that there was no proof against the
petitioners which could be converted into legal evidence
and quashed the case against him.
''This 15-month period since January 1996 has been a most trying
and traumatic phase of my life,'' Advani told United News of India
after the verdict.
Advani had vowed not to enter Parliament till he
was absolved of the charges of accepting a bribe from the Jain
brothers in the hawala case.
Earlier Stories:
CBI delaying hearing of Advani's hawala case, charges BJP
Off Wallets & Ballots
Establish existence of hawala money, challenges Shukla
SC order, evidence of connivance between UF govt and Congress: BJP
Hawala issue continues to divide BJP
From donor kidneys to greedy politicians, how hawala spreads its web
