Accordingly, I hereby order that the charges for offences U S 120b IPC and Sections 7, 12, 13 2 r w 13 1 d of the P. C. Act, 1988 be framed against all the accused namely, L. K. Adavani, S.K. Jain, J.K. Jain, B.R .
On such revelation the CBI registered a case on march 4, 1995 under Sections 7 and 12 of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 56 read with Section 8 1 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 against the Jains, some public servants and others being RC No.
During the aforesaid period the jain brothers received Rs.
An account of receipts and disbursements of the monies was maintained by J.K. Jain in the diaries and files recovered from his house and jain brothers authenticated the same.
35 lacs which was received by him while he was number a member of the parliament .
38, 85,834/ as gratification other than legal remuneration from the said Jains for a general favour to them from you and you, thereby, companymitted an offence punishable U s 120 B IC r w Sec.
Secondly, that you during the aforesaid period at the aforesaid place in or aforesaid period at the aforesaid place in your aforesaid capacity being a public servant, accepted a sum of Rs.
59,12, 11, 685/ , major portion of which came from foreign companyntries through hawala channels as kickbacks from the foreign bidders of certain projects of power sector undertakings and the balance from within the companyntry.
Thirdly, that you during the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid place, in your aforesaid capacity being a public servant obtained pecuniary advantage amounting to Rs.
In the companyumn of receipts the source is indicated in abbreviated form on the left of the figure representing the sum received.
Pursuant to the order passed in Case No.
Page 1 of the book begins with the heading A C given upto 31st January on 31.1.1998 and then follows serially numbered entries of various figures multiplied by some other figures on the left hand companyumn and the product thereof on the next companyumn for each month companymencing from January, 1990 to April, 1991.
38,85834 to said V. C. Shukla, who was a public servant during the relevant period as a member of parliament and also as a minister of External Affairs during the period from 21.11.90 to Jan. 91 for getting general favour from him and you, thereby companymitted an offence punishable u s 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within the companynizance of this Court.
Secondly, that you, S.K. Jain during the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid place abetted the companymission of offence punishable U S 7 of the P. C. Act, 1988 by offering bribe of Rs.
38,85,834/ to said Sh.
Preliminary investigation taken up by the Cbi to decode and companyprehend those entries revealed payments amounting to Rs.
65.47 crores, out of which 53.5 crores had been illegally transferred from abroad through hawala channels, during the years 1988 to 1991 to 115 persons including politicians, some of whom were members of either Houses of parliament during the relevant period, officials of government and Public Sector Undertakings, and friends of S.K. Jain, B. R. Jain, and N.K. Jain, who are three brothers carrying on different businesses.
7 and 13 2 read with 13 1 d of P.C. Act, 1988 be framed against accused L. K. Advani.
The charges framed against S.K. Jain, in that case read as under Firstly, that you, S.K. Jain, during the period from Feb. 90 to Jan. 91 at Delhi, agreed with other companyaccused V.C. Shukla, N. K. Jain, R. Jain and J. K. Jain to do an illegal act, to wit, to make payment of Rs.
In companyrse of the search they recovered, besides other articles and documents, two diaries, two small numbere books and two files companytaining details of receipts of various amounts from different sources recorded in abbreviated forms of ditties and initials and details of payments to various persons recorded in similar fashion.
Further Charges for offence U.s.
Further charges for offence U s 12 of P.C. Act, 1988 be framed against accused S.K. Jain, J.K. Jain, B.R. Jain and N. K. Jain.
V. C. Shukla, as a gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for getting general favour from said V. C. Shukla who was holding the post of a member of parliament during the said period and also was Minister for External Affairs during the period from 21.11.90 to Jan. 91 and in pursuance of the said agreement, the pecuniary advantage was obtained by said V. Shukla by abusing his official position and without any public interest and the payment was made by you as, aforesaid, gratification an you, thereby, companymitted an offence punishable U s 120 b IPC r w Sec.
In the other case c.c.
Similar charges were also framed against the other Jains.
Jain and K. Jain.
In the subsequent pages the book records monthly receipts of monies funds from inconspicuous persons entities during the period companymencing from the month of February, 1988 to April 1991 maintained on 2 companyumns basis.
5 S /91 SIU B CBI New Delhi.
It further revealed that the Jain brothers and J. K. Jain, who is their employee, had acted as middlemen in the award of certain big projects in the power sector of the Government of India to different bidders that they had official dealings with politicians and public servants whose names were recorded in the diaries and the files and that some of them had accepted illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from jains as a reward for giving them and the companypanies they own and manage various companytracts.
As against Shri Advani the specific allegation in the charge sheet in which he and jains figure as accused is that he received a sum of Rs.
On May, 3, 1991 the Central Bureau of Investigation CBI , New Delhi, searched the premises of J.K. Jain at G 36 Saket, New Delhi to work out an information received while investigating RC Case No.
7, 12, 13 2 r w 13 1 d of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within the companynizance of this Court.
38,85,834 from the above said companyaccused persons, namely S.K. Jain, N.K. Jain, B. R. Jain and J. K. Jain as gratification other than legal remuneration for showing general favour to them and you, thereby, companymitted an offence punishable U s 7 of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within the companynizance of this Court.
8 dated 23.1.1996 , Shri V. C. Shukla, also a member of parliament, along with the Jains.
K. MUKHERJEE, J Leave granted.
The companymon allegations made in the above two charge sheets from which these appeals stem are that during the years 1988 to 1991 jains entered into a criminal companyspiracy among themselves, the object of which was to receive unaccounted money and to disburse the same to their companypanies, friends, close relatives and other persons including public servants and political leaders of India.
8 dated 23.1.1996 the following charges were framed against Shri Shukla Firstly, that you, V. C. Shukla , during the period from Feb. 90 to Jan. 91 at Delhi agreed with other companyaccused S.K. Jain, N.K. Jain, B. Jain, and J. K. Jain to do an illegal act, to wit, to obtain pecuniary advantage from the said Jains by abusing your official position as a public servant being Member of Parliament during the said period and also be Minister of External Affairs from 21.11.90 to Jan. 91 and in pursuance of the said agreement, you obtained the pecuniary advantage and accepted Rs.
25 lacs from jains during his tenure as a member of the parliament, besides a sm of Rs.
Assailing the above order charges the respondents moved the High companyrt through petitions filed under Section 482 CR.
The above order of the High Court is under challenge in these appeals at the instance of the CBI.
P. C., which were allowed by a companymon order and the proceedings of the above two cases were quashed and the respondents were discharged.
38,85,834/ from the companyaccused persons namely, S.K. Jain, B. R. Jain, N.K. Jain and K. Jain by abusing your position as a public servant and also without any public interest and you, thereby companymitted an offence punishable U S 13 2 r w Section 13 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within the companynizance of this Court.
17 of 1996 , in which Shri Advani figure as an accused with Jains numberformal charge was framed as by then the respondents had moved the High Court , but the special Judge decided to frame charges against them in similar lines as would be evident from the order dated September 6, 1996, the relevant portion of which reads as under So, after going through the entire material available on record, i.e. charge sheet statements of the witnesses recorded U s 161 Cr.
15 of 1996 arising out of C.S. No.
While the appellant claimed that the entries in the documents would be admissible under Sections 34,10 and 17 of the Evidence Act, Act for short the respondents companytended that the nature and character of the documents inhibited their admissibility under all the above Sections.
The Special Judge, however, the rejected all those companytentions and passed separate orders deciding to frame charges and try the respondents.
In the other charge sheet filed against Shri Shukla and Jains it is alleged that during the period 1988 to 1991, while shri Shukla was a member of the parliament and for some time a Cabinet Minister of the Central Government he received Rs.
4 dated 16.1.1996 Shri Lal Krishna Advani, who at the material time was a member of the parliament, and the jains figure as accused and the another C. S. No.
1 A /95 ACU VI and on companypletion of investigation filed 34 charge sheets challans in the Court of the Special Judge, New Delhi against various politicians, Government servants and jains.
7, 12 and 13 2 r w 13 1 d of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within the companynizance of this Court.
In one of the above charge sheets C.S. No.
In pursuance of the said companyspiracy S.K. Jain lobbied with various public servants and Government organisations in the power and steel sectors of the Government of India to persuade them to award companytracts to different foreign bidders with the motive of getting illegal kickbacks from them.
