No evidence to try Advani, Shukla
in hawala case: counsel
The Central Bureau of Investigation had not placed on record any
evidence of favours done by Bharatiya Janata Party President L
K Advani or former federal minister V C Shukla to the Jain brothers,
key accused in the Rs 650 million Jain hawala case, their
counsel told the Delhi high court on Tuesday, March 18.
Senior counsel Kapil Sibal submitted before Justice Mohammad Shamim
that the CBI had not placed before the court any prima facie material
in relation to the essential facts of the case.
The CBI has chargesheeted Advani and Shukla for allegedly 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.
Sibal contended before Justice Shamim that these political leaders
could be charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act only if
it was shown by the CBI that they had done any favours to the
Jain brothers in discharge of their official functions.
Stating that ''every person wears two hats'', the counsel averred
that the prosecution had to prove that the politicians accepted
money from the Jain brothers as ''motive or reward'' for some
act done in discharge of their official functions.
In the absence of any such material, charges should not have been
framed against the accused merely on the basis of some entries
in the Jain diaries, he added.
On the question of whether legislators were public servants or
not, Sibal submitted that for the purpose of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, MPs or MLAs would be considered public servants
only if they did certain acts in discharge of their official functions
as members of the house.
And if they are deemed to be public servants, prior sanction from
a competent authority is essential before they can be prosecuted,
he added.
Citing Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Sibal said
that this clearly stated that no court shall take cognisance of
an offence against a public servant unless prior sanction is taken
from an authority competent to remove the public servant.
''If a person is not covered by Section 19, then he is not a public
servant,'' a counsel added.
Sibal pointed out that Article 103 of the Constitution provided
for the disqualification of an MP in a given set of circumstances,
including in case of conviction for a criminal offence or if the
person is holding an office of profit.
In such cases, the president, on the Election Commission's advice,
can disqualify an MP, he added.
UNI
|
