The bench agreed with the submissions of Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi who referred to earlier judgements of the apex court and said that entries made by unscrupulous persons in papers, diaries were inadmissible evidence.The new bench was constituted as Prashant Bhushan, lawyer for the Common Cause, had sought recusal of the then Chief Justice of India-designate, Justice J S Khehar, on the ground that his file for elevation for CJI was pending with the executive headed by the Prime Minister.”In case, we dont insist on all this, the process of law can be abused to achieve ulterior goals and no one can survive in case investigation are readily ordered against constitutional functionaries without cogent materials on record,” it said. Otherwise the process of law can be abused to achieve ulterior goals,” the court observed dismissing the NGOs plea.”Irrespective of the fact, we have apprehension even to initiate investigation in the case and China acrylic photo frame sheets manufacturer if we do so, investigation can be ordered against a person whosoever high in integrity on the basis of entries made by some unscrupulous elements in accounts of book which should not be random and there must be some cogent, reliable and admissible evidence,” it said.
With regard to the payments, the documents have not been relied upon.Dissatisfied with the loose sheets, which were claimed to be part of the diary entries of the Sahara Group and Aditya Birla Group, containing entries like “Gujarat CM” and other politicians, the bench said materials placed on record by the NGO, Common Cause were not maintained by the two business housed in the regular course of business.The case based on “random materials” like loose sheets, papers, e-mail print outs is “merit less” as they are “inadmissible materials” having “no evidentiary value under the law” to order registration of FIR and investigation, more so against the high constitutional functionaries, whose names are mentioned in the documents which has been held as prima facie “fabricated” by income tax settlement commission, the court said.”In view of the materials placed on record and peculiarity of the facts and circumstances, no case is made out on merits to direct investigation against various political functionaries, officers etc..”We are constrained to observe that courts have to be at guard while ordering investigation against any important constitutional functionaries..The top court said that the apex courts decision relied upon by the petitioner for seeking investigation was of “no help” to them as the “materials are not good enough to direct registration of FIR”.
rylcotrama