 |
|
|
The Central Bureau of Investigation on Monday conceded before the
Delhi High Court that the investigating agency did not have any
direct evidence to establish that BJP president L K Advani, or
former Union Minister V C Shukla received huge bribes in the RS 64
crore hawala seam.
Continuing his arguments before Justice Mohd Shamim, CBI counsel
Gopal Subramaniam, however, reiterated that the crisply maintained
diaries, loose papersheets and the spiral note pads seized from the
Jains, key accused in the hawala case, was sufficient
circumstantial evidence to commit cases against the accused.
Subramaniam further contended that the documents have initials and
money paid as political expenses clearly noted, and said on the
basis of the evidence there was a strong evidence there was a
strong suspicion that the two accused have received money from
accused persons. Justice Shamim repeatedly asked the CBI counsel
as to what was the evidence other than these entries to show that
Advani and Shukla received money and did some favour to Jains.
Reminding the counsel that this was a criminal case, the judge
wondered as to how in the absence of these evidences linking the
two accused to the case, there could be a prima facie view that
they had accepted the bribe and hence charges be framed against
them. The judge said before committing the case to trial there has
to be some preliminary evidence and added that until and unless
that (preliminary) evidence was there how could a man be sent to
trial, which would clearly vitiate the principles of criminal law.
The CBI counsel said there might not be direct evidence regarding
acceptance of money by the accused, but collateral evidence raises
a strong suspicion that the money was actually paid to Advani and
Shukla. He said the 'LKA' and 'Advani' written in the loose papers
under the head of 'political expenses' clearly points a finger of
suspicion towards Lal Krishan Advani while CBI has established
earlier links between Shukla and Jams.
Subramaniam said in the circumstantial evidence gathered by the
CBI, it was clear that the seed of conspiracy between parties was
clearly planted. The CBI had seized two diaries, two sets of loose
papersheets and two spiral note-pads from S K Jain's residence in
May 1991.
Documents, hand written by S K Jain's secretary, J K Jain,
allegedly showed that Advani was paid Rs 60 lakh of which Rs 25
lakh as a public servant and Shukla Rs 89 lakh of which Rs 38 lakh
as public servant during April 88 and March 90.
He said documents seized from the accused would be perfectly legal
if the admissibility as stipulated under section 10 of Evidence Act
and law of conspiracy were read together.
|
|
|