"Bogus entries", inadmissible evidence used against Advani: counsel

The Central Bureau of Investigation has used "bogus entries" and inadmissible evidence against Bharatiya Janata Party leader L K Advani in the Rs 650-million Jain hawala bribery case, Advani’s counsel submitted before the Delhi high court Thursday.

Rebutting arguments put forth by the CBI counsel, senior counsel Ram Jethmalani submitted before Justice Mohammad Shamim that the CBI was trying to implicate Advani on the basis of ''documentary hearsay'' and ''inadmissible evidence''. Therefore, the charges of corruption and criminal conspiracy framed against him by the special court should be quashed, Jethmalani said.

The loose sheet allegedly containing Advani's name was not admissible as evidence as there was no independent evidence to substantiate it. For this reason, the loose sheet could not be used as evidence under section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act and was merely ''documentary hearsay'', he added.

The senior counsel also contended that the CBI had failed to give any prima facie proof of conspiracy involving Advani and had thus failed to establish the ''condition precedent'' to invoke section 10 of the Act.

''Disputed evidence is the only evidence brought forward by the CBI in this case. Section 10 is not attracted because the foundation for its application is wanting,'' he said.

Jethmalani said that the order of Special Judge V B Gupta, framing charges of corruption and conspiracy against the BJP leader, also stated that ''it is an admitted position that there is no evidence apart from the Jain brothers' books against Advani''.

Advani's counsel further averred that the BJP president's name did not figure anywhere in the diaries seized from the main accused Jain brothers and was mentioned only on a loose sheet. He further contended that the balance amount in the diaries did not tally with those in the loose sheet.

He said that as per the chargesheet and the Jain diary, the amount mentioned under the head ''other expenses'' was Rs 4.2 million. However, somebody had changed this figure and informed the special judge that the amount under this head was only Rs 1.85 million, the counsel said.

He averred that this was done so that the sum total of receipts and expendtiure would tally. ''Otherwise, the total amount in the Jain kitty is smaller than the outgoings by about Rs 2.3 million.'' If the figures in the loose sheet do not tally with those in the diaries, one set of figures is ''false or bogus'', he added.

Jethmalani also contended that Advani could not deemed to be a public servant in November 1989 as the new Lok Sabha had not been constituted then. Refuting the CBI argument that a person is considered an mp the moment his result is declared by the returning officer, counsel said that was correct in by-elections but not in general elections, where the house has to be constituted first.

According to the CBI, Advani allegedly received Rs 3.5 million from the Jain brothers while serving as a public servant between 1988 and 1990.