RASHTRIYA MUKTI MORCHA Vs. SURAJ MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 26th July 1993 motion of No confidence was moved against the Government headed by the Congress Party. Since the effective strength of the 10th Lok Sabha at that time was 528 Congress Party needed 265 votes to defeat the Motion of No Confidence but had 250 members in the House. When the votes on No Confidence Motion were cast on 28th July 1993, the motion was defeated by 265 votes against and 251 in favour. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner, as set out in the writ petition is:

(2.) The result of defeating Motion of No Confidence was achieved by Congress Party by in dulging in political horse trading and violation of Constitutional morality. The whisker majority of one (264 4- 1) in the 10th Lok Sabha was manipulated by Sh.P.V.Narsimha Rao, President of Congrcss(l) who was also the Prime Minister and for this purpose he was responsible to offer bribes and utilised the monies he had collected by offering inducemens. These bribes helped Sh.Rao to muster whisker majority of one vote to defeat the No-Confidence motion. Shri Suraj Mandal; a member of Lok Sabha who is Respondent No. 1 before us, was one such member who was paid handsomely to switch over his support in favour of Congress. The other members of the opposition who voted to defeat the No Confidence motion included Sh.Simon Mirand, Shalender Mehto and Shibu Soren, all members of Lok Sabha belonging to Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and Sh.Govinda Chandra Munda and Gulam Mohd.Khan, members of Parliament (Janta Dal-A) who had earlier defected and were declared disqualified but their disqualification was stayed by this court. The petitioner to illustrate that bribe was offered has been able to collect credible information regarding one of the bank accounts of Respondent No.l, who is one of the four members of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, a regional political parly of Bihar, who voted against the No Confidence motion. That credible information is a Saving Bank account No. 17108 maintained by Respondent No.l with Punjab National Bank, Naroji Nagar Branch, New Delhi. The address i.e. M-12, Green Park, New Delhi, given to the bank by respondent No.l is false. The entries in the said account showing deposit of huge amounts in cash have been set out in petition. The crucial entry in that account is of Rs.30,00,000.00 which was deposited in cash on 1st August 1993, a date proximate in lime to the date when Respondent No.l split from Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (alongwith 3 others) to enable him and his other detectors to swell support in the 10th Lok Sabha in opposition to the No Confidence motion. Respondent No.l is neither gainfully employed nor connected with any business to enable him to earn a wind fall of three million rupees and that he has not received this amount by inheritence or under any bequest and it is a bumper for the fall from constitutional morality, wages of political sin, which is an offence under Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act and if the primary source of this money is traced, offence under Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1978 is also made out. The statement of one Sh.S.K.Jain recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been reproduced in the petition, interalia, staling that he expected some works in the plant (at Rourkela) to be given to him and in that expectation he agreed to pay Rs.3 crores; these payments were required for the purposes of effecting defections of some Members of Parliament in support of the Congress Parly which was being planned during those days by Satish Sharma and Chandraswamy.

(3.) The petitioner has also alleged that this petition has nothing to do with Hawala. The petitioner further says that the history of Hawala case (the present one is not based on Jain diaries) shows that CBI has done its worst in ensuring a cover up on the involvement of persons described in the diaries and unless supervision of the court is imposed, the CBI is sure to play all the tricks to bail out Sh.Rao.