P V NARASIMHA RAO Vs. STATE CBI SPE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether by virtue of Article 105 of the Constitution a Member of Parliament can claim immunity from prosecution on a charge of bribery in a criminal court, and whether a Member of Parliament is a "public servant" falling within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1988 Act"). These are the two questions which have come up for consideration before this bench in these matters.

(2.) In the General Election for the Tenth Lok Sabha held in 1991 the Congress (1 party emerged as the single largest party and it formed the government with P. V. Narasimha Rao (hereinafter referred to as "a-1") as the Prime Minister. In the Monsoon Session of the Lok Sabha in July 1993 a "no-confidence motion" was moved against the government by Shri Ajay Mukhopadhyaya, a CPI (M) MP. At that time the effective strength of the House (Lok Sabha) was 528 and Congress (1 party had 251 members. It was short by 14 members for simple majority. The motion of no confidence was taken up for discussion in the Lok Sabha on 26/7/1993 and the debate continued till 28/7/1993. The motion was thereafter put to vote. The motion was defeated with 251 members voting in favour of the motion, while 265 voting against it. On 28/2/1996, one Shri Ravindra Kumar of Rashtriya Mukti Morcha filed a complaint dated 1/2/1996 with the central Bureau of Investigation (for short "cbi") wherein it was alleged that in July 1993 a criminal conspiracy was hatched by A-1, Satish Sharma (hereinafter referred to as "a-2") , Ajit Singh (hereinafter referred to as "a-13") , Bhajan Lal (hereinafter referred to as "a-14") , V. C. Shukla, R. K. Dhawan and Lalit Suri to prove a majority of the government on the floor of the House on 28/7/19933 by bribing Members of Parliament of different political parties, individuals and groups with an amount of over Rs 3 crores and that in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy a sum of Rs 1.10 crores was handed over by the aforementioned persons, except A-15, to Suraj Mandal (hereinafter referred to as "a-3"). On the basis of the said complaint the CBI registered four cases under Section 13 (2 read with Section 13 (1 (d) (iii) of the 1988 Act against A-3, Shibu Soren (hereinafter referred to as "a-4") , Simon Marandi (hereinafter referred to as "a-5") and Shailendra Mahto (hereinafter referred to as "a-6") , Members of Parliament belonging to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha party (for short "jmm"). Subsequently in pursuance of the order dated 24/5/1996 passed by the Delhi High court in Civil Writ Petition No. 23 of 1996 another case was registered on 11/6/1996 against A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-14, A-15, V. C. Shukia, R. K. Dhawan, Lalit Suri and others under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code and S. 7, 12, 13 (2 read with Section l3 (1 (d) (iii) of the 1988 Act. After completing the investigation, the CBI submitted three charge-sheets dated 30/10/1996, 9/12/1996 and 22/1/1997 in the court of Special Judge, New Delhi. In the first charge-sheet dated 30/10/1996 it was stated that investigation had revealed that A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, Buta Singh (hereinafter referred 644 to as "a-7") , and other unknown persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to defeat the "no-confidence motion" by resorting to giving and accepting of gratification as a motive or reward and in pursuance thereof four Members a of Parliament belonging to JMM (A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6 accepted illegal gratification to vote against the motion and because of their votes and some other votes the government led by A-1 survived. It was also stated in the charge-sheet that investigation has also revealed that the four Members of Parliament belonging to JMM had been bribed in crores of rupees for voting against the "no-confidence motion". The said charge-sheet was filed against A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 and other unknown persons in respect of offences under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code and S. 7, 12, 13 (2 read with Section 13 (1 (d) (iii) of the 1988 Act and substantive offences thereunder. The second charge-sheet dated 9/12/1996 was in the nature of a supplementary charge-sheet wherein it was stated that investigation has further revealed that V. Rajeshwara Rao (hereinafter referred to as "a-8") , N. M. Revanna (hereinafter referred to as "a-9") , Ramalinga Reddy (hereinafter referred to as "a-10") , M. Veerappa Moily (hereinafter referred to as "a-11") , D. K. Adikeshavulu (hereinafter referred to as "a-12") and M. Thimmegowda (hereinafter referred to as "a-13") were also parties to the criminal conspiracy which is the subject-matter of the first charge-sheet filed on 30/10/1996 and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy they had arranged funds and bribed the four JMM MPs as the motive or award to secure their support to defeat the "no-confidence motion" and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code and S. 7, 12, 13 (2 read with Section 13 (1 (d) (iii) of the 1988 Act and substantive offences thereunder along with the original seven accused. In the third charge-sheet dated 22/1/1997, which was described as "supplementary Charge-Sheet No. 2", it was stated that further investigation has been carried on under Section 173 (8 of Criminal Procedure Code and as a result identity of the remaining accused persons has been established and that they are A-14, A-15, Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav (hereinafter referred to as "a-16") , Ram Sharan Yadav (hereinafter referred to as "a-17") , Roshan Lal (hereinafter referred to as "a-18") , Abhay Pratap Singh (hereinafter referred to as "a-19") , Anadicharan Das (hereinafter referred to as "a-20") , Haji Gulam Mohd. Khan (hereinafter referred to as "a-21") and late G. C. Munda (hereinafter referred to as "a-22"). It was stated that even after securiag the support of four JMM MPs in the manner stated in the first charge-sheet dated 30-10- 1996 and second charge-sheet dated 9/12/1996 the Congress (1 government still required the support of some more MPs and that with this objective the Congress (1 led by A-1 was making efforts to win the support of some other MPs including MPs belonging to Janta Dal (Ajit Group) [for short "jd (A) "]. In the charge-sheet it was also stated that A-14, A-15, A-16, A-17, A-18, A-19, A-20, A-21 and A-22 were parties to the criminal conspiracy along with A-1 to A-13 already named in the earlier two charge-sheets and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy A-14 had arranged funds and had paid bribes to A-15 and the seven MPs of the breakaway JD (A) as a 645 motive or award to secure their support to defeat the "no-confidence motion" and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code and S. 7, 12, 13 (2 read with Section 13 (1 (d) (iii) of the 1988 Act and substantive offences thereunder.

(3.) An application was submitted by A-6 (Shailendra Mahto) under Section 306 Criminal Procedure Code for grant of pardon for being treated as an approver. The said application was referred to the Magistrate for recording his statement under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code and after considering the said statement the Special Judge, by order dated 5/4/1997, allowed the application of A-6 and tendered pardon to him on the condition of his making a full and true disclosure of all the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offences of every other person concerned, whether as a principal or abettor in the commission of the offences under the charge-sheets. After hearing the arguments on charges, the Special Judge passed the order dated 6/5/1997 wherein he held that there is sufficient evidence on record to justify framing of charges against all the appellants. Insofar as A-1, A-2, A-7 and A-8 to A-14 are concerned, the Special Judge held that there is sufficient evidence on record to justify framing of charges under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code read with S. 7, 12, 13 (2 read with Section 13 (1 (d) of the 1988 Act and also for substantive offence punishable under Section 12 of the 1988 Act against all of them. So far as A-3 to A-5 and A-15 to A-21 are concerned, the Special Judge held that there is sufficient evidence on record to justify framing of charges under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code read with S. 7, 12, 13 (2 read with Section 13 (1 (d) of the 1988 Act and as well as charges for substantive offence punishable under Section 7 and Section 13 (2 read with Section 13 (1 (d) of the 1988 Act against all of them. The Special Judge also held that there is prima facie evidence of commission of offence under Section 193 Indian Penal Code by Accused A-3 to A-5.