Good ground to try Advani, Shukla, CBI tells Supreme Court

''These diaries are not a work of a maverick mind. They are a systematic record of a clandestine activity being carried out by the main accused Jain brothers,'' senior counsel Gopal Subramaniam submitted before Justice Mohammad Shamim.

Continuing arguments on behalf of the investigating agency for the second week, Subramaniam sought to dispel the impression that the diaries were of no evidentiary value and that the special hawala court of V B Gupta was wrong in framing charges of criminal conspiracy and corruption against Advani and Shukla on their basis.

''The six documents -- two diaries, two notebooks and two files -- seized from the Jain brothers by the CBI show strong interconnections between the entries recorded. And these entries tally with the sum total shown in the balance sheets,'' the counsel added.

There is internal consistency in these documents, which recorded in detail the receipt and disbursement of money by the Jain brothers, Subramaniam said.

Rebutting the argument of Advani's counsel Ram Jethmalani that the BJP president's name did not occur in the diary but in a loose sheet which was of no evidentiary value, the CBI counsel said all documents have to be judged in their entirety as they recorded the various stages of account keeping by the Jain brothers.

The fact that the CBI recovered Rs 58 lakh from the Jain brothers, which was shown as leftover balance in the diaries, inspires confidence in their authenticity and these cannot be brushed aside, the counsel added.

Both Advani and Shukla's names are mentioned in these documents under the head ''political expenses'' and there is room for a prima facie logical inference that they received payments from the Jain brothers, he said.

Advani's name is mentioned in full as ''Advani'' by the Jains at one place and as ''L K A'' at another. In Shukla's case, the CBI has been able to establish social links between him and the Jains.

However, Justice Shamim observed that the CBI had not placed on record any evidence linking Advani with the Jain brothers. Nor had it shown any evidence of any favours or disfavours done by Advani at their behest.

To this, Subramaniam submitted that at the stage of framing of charges, the court only had to examine if there was sufficient material to form a prima facie view of the case and to send it up for trial.

In the present case, the court should view the various pieces of evidence on a ''cumulative basis'' because when taken together, they contain the ''germ of "authenticity'' which is sufficient at the stage of framing of charges, he added.

The CBI has charged Advani and Shukla with receiving as illegal gratification Rs 3.5 million and Rs 3.8 million respectively, from the Jain brothers while serving as public servants between 1988 and 1990. Both of them have appealed in the high court against the lower court order framing charges against them.