A 3 to A 5, belonging to JMM and A 15 to A 21, belonging to JD A , have been further charged with offences under Section 7 and Section 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d of the 1988 Act.
A 3 to A 5.
It was stated that even after securing the support of four JMM MPs in the manner stated in the first charge sheet dated October 30, 1996 and second charge sheet dated December 9, 1996 the Congress I Government still required the support of some more MPs and that with this objective the Congress I 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 .
joined by Douglas J. disssented.
The said application was referred to the Magistrate for recording his statement under Section 164 Cr.
P.C. The High Court thereafter examined the material on record in relation to each accused person and found that there was numberground for interfering with the order passed by the Special Judge.
P.C. and after companysidering the said statement the Special Judge, by order dated April 5, 1997, allowed the application of A 6 and tendered pardon to him on the companydition of his making a full and true disclosure of all the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offences of every other person companycerned, whether as a principal or abettor in the companymission of the offences under the charge sheets.
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 companyspiracy along with A 1 to A 13 already named in the earlier two charge sheets and in pursuance to the said criminal companyspiracy A 14 had arranged funds and had paid bribes to A 15 and the seven MPs of the breakaway JD A as a motive or award to secure their support to defeat the No Confidence Motion and thereby companymitted the offences punishable under Section 120 B IPC and Section 7, 12, 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d iii of the 1988 Act and substantive offences thereunder.
M, Thimmegowda, Bhajan Lal, JMM Jharkhand Mukti MOrcha MPs Shibu Soren.
The second charge sheet dated December 9, 1996 was in the nature of a supplementary charge sheet wherein it was stated that investigation has further revealed that V. Rajeshwar Rao hereinafter referred to as A 8, N.M. Revanna hereinafter referred to as A 9, Ramalinga Reddy hereinafter referred to as A 12 and M. Thimmegowda hereinafter referred to as A 13 were also parties to the criminal companyspiracy which is the subject matter of the first charge sheet filed on October 30, 1996 and in pursuance to the said criminal companyspiracy 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 companymitted the offences punishable under Section 120 B IPC and Section 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.
After companypleting the investigation, the CBI submitted three charge sheets dated October 30, 1996, December 9, 1996 and January 22, 1977 in the companyrt of Special Judge, New Delhi.
Brennan and White JJ.
These petitions are, therefore, required to be heard and disposed of by a Constitution Bench.
Keshav Singh moved a petition under Article 226 challenging his companymittal and he prayed for bail.
An application was submitted by A 6 Shailendra Mahto under Section 306 Cr.
The appeals were heard by a bench of three learned judges and then referred to a Constitution Bench, broadly put, is that, by virtue of the provisions of Article 105, they are immune from the prosecution and that, in any event, they cannot be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998.
Two learned judges of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court ordered that Keshav Singh be released on bail pending the decision on the writ petition.
Fourthly, that you during the pendency of investigation of present case while writ petition No.789/96 was pending disposal in Honble High Court between February to April, 1996 at Delhi, Ranchi and other places intentionally caused to bring false evidence into existence by fabricating or causing to fabricate the documents or records i. e. books of accounts, proceeding books, etc.
Before the Special Judge, an objection was raised n behalf of the accused persons that the jurisdiction of the Court to try the case was barred under Article 105 2 of the Constitution because the trial is in respect of matters which relate to the privileges and immunities of the House of Parliament Lok Sabha and its Members inasmuch as the foundation of the charge sheets is the allegation of acceptance of bribe by some Members of Parliament for voting against the No Confidence Motion and that the companytroversy to be decided in this case would be in respect of the motive and action of Members of Parliament pertaining to the vote given by them in relation to the No Confidence Motion.
Simon Marandi, Shailendra Mehto Approver, since granted pardon on 8.4.97 , Janta Dal Ajit Group MPs, Ajit Singh, Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav.
In the third charge sheet dated January 22, 1997, which was described as Supplementary Charge Sheet No.
Suraj Mandal, Shibu Sopren, Simon Marandi.
Satish Sharma, Buta Singh, V. Rajeshwara Rao, H.M. Revanna, Ramlinga Reddy, M. Veerappa Moily, D.K. Audi Keshvalu, Thimmegow, Bhajan Lakl, JMM Jharkhand Mukti Morcha MPs.
The charge of criminal companyspiracy as against appellants who are alleged to have agreed to receive the gratification A 3 to A 5 and A 15 to A 21 is in these terms Firstly, you between July and august, 1993 at Delhi and Bangalore were party to a criminal companyspiracy and agreed to or enter into an agreement with your companyaccused P.V. Narsimha Rao, Capt.
All the appellants have been charged with the offence of criminal companyspiracy punishable under Sections 120 B IPC read with Section 7, 12 and 13 2 read with 13 1 d of the 1988 Act.
Shilendra Mahto Approver, since granted pardon on 8.4.97 , Janta Dal Ajit Group MPs Ajit Singh , Ram Lakhan Singh, Haji Ghulam Mohd, Khan and late G.C. Munda to defeat the numberconfidence motion moved on 26.7.93 against the then Congress I Government headed by you by illegal means viz.,
The third companytention that the 1988 Act is number applicable to a Member of Parliament since there is numberauthority companypetent to remove him from his office for the purpose of granting sanction under Section 19 1 c of the 1988 Act was also number accepted by the High Court.
On the basis of the said companyplain 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 Shallendra Mahto hereinafter referred to as A 6, Members of Parliament belonging to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha party for short JMM.
P.C. for grant of pardon for being treated as an approver.
The motion was defeated with 251 members voting in favour of the motion, while 265 voting against it.
The charge framed against Suraj Mandal of the J.M.M. reads thus Firstly you between July and August, 1993 at Delhi and Bangalore were party to a criminal companyspiracy and agreed to or enter into an agreement with your companyaccused P.V. Narasimha Rao, Capt.
Felling aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, the appellants have filed these appeals.
Similar charges were framed against the other alleged bribe takers of the J.M.M Similar charges were also framed against the alleged bribe takers of the J.D., A.S., except that there was numbercharge against them under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.
Similarly charges were framed against the alleged bribe givers.
During the pendency of the appeals in this Court the Special Judge has framed the charges against the accused persons appellants herein on September 25, 1997.
Subsequently in pursuance of the order dated May 24, 1996 passed by the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.
V.C. Shukla, R.K. Dhawan, Lalit Suri and others under Section 120 B IPC and Section 7, 12, 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d iii of the 1988 Act.
The Court companystrued the Speech or Debate Clause as giving protection to an act which was clearly a part of the legislative process the due functioning of the process.
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 agains the No Confidence Motion.
On 28th July, 1993, the numberconfidence motion was lost, 251 members having voted in support and 265 against.
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 IPC and Sections 7, 12, 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d iii of the 1988 Act and substantive offences thereunder.
Thirdly you during the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places being a public servant while functioning in your aforesaid capacity of Member of Parliament by companyrupt or illegal means and by abusing your position as a said public servant obtained for yourself or your other companyaccused i.e. JMM MPs named above the pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.
To offer or cause to offer and pay gratification other than the legal remuneration to your company accused persons namely J.M.M. and Janta Dal A MPs named above as a motive or reward for their helping in defeating the said numberconfidence motion moved by the opposition parties and in pursuance of the said agreement you paid or caused to pay several lacs of rupees to the above referred JMM and Janta Dal A MPs who obtained or attempted to obtain the same in the manner stated above and thereby you have companymitted an offence punishable u S 120 B IPC r w Sections 7,12 and 13 2 r w 13 2 r w 13 i d of the PC Act 1988 and within my companynizance.
In pursuance of the said order, the matter has been placed before us.
2, it was stated that further investigation has been carried on under Section 173 8 of Cr.
At the companymencement of the hearing, we passed the following order on December 9, 1997 By order dated November 18, 1997 these matters have been referred to this Court for the reason that among other questions, a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Article 105 of the Constitution of India is raised in these petitions.
Burger CJ.,
of JMM Central Office.
who delivered the opinion of the Court on behalf of six Judges, held that the Speech or Debate Clause protects the members of Congress from inquiry into legislative acts or into the motivation for their actual performance of legislative acts and it does number protect them from other activities they undertake that are political, rather than legislative, in nature and that taking a bribe for t he purpose of having ones official companyduct influenced is number part of any legislative process or function and the Speech or Debate Clause did number prevent indictment and prosecution of Brewster for accepting bribes.
A prosecution being launched against the aforesaid alleged bribe givers and bribe takers subsequent to the vote upon the numberconfidence motion, companynizance was taken by the Special Judge, Delhi.
Revision Petitions filed by the appellants against the said order of the Special Judge have been dismissed by the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court.
The learned companynsel for the parties agree that the Constitution Bench may only deal with the questions relating to interpretation of Article 105 of the Constitution and the applicability of the Prevention of Corruption Act to a Member of Parliament and Member of State Legislative Assembly and the other questions can be companysidered by the Division Bench.
The High Court has also pointed out that four numberices of a question of privilege dated February 26 and 27, 1997 were given by four members of Lok Sabha, namely, Sarva Shri Jaswant Singh, Indrajit Gupta, Arjun Singh and Jagmeet Singh Brar against A 1 and the four members belonging to JMM A 3 to A 6 .
The charge of criminal companyspiracy as against appellants who are alleged to have agreed to offer gratification A 1, A 2 and A 7 to A 14 is in these terms That you P.V. Narsimha Rao between July and August, 1993 at Delhi and Bangalore were party to a criminal companyspiracy and agreed to or entered into an agreement with your company accused Capt.
1.10 crores was handed over by the aforementioned persons, except A 15, to Suraj Mandal hereinafter referred to as A 3.
Hence, these appeals.
to obtain or agree to obtain gratification other than legal remunerations from your above named accused persons other than JMM and Janta Dal A MPs as a motive or reward for defeating the numberconfidence motion and in pursuance thereof above named accused persons other than JMM and Janta Dal A passed on several lacs of rupees to you or your other companyaccused namely JMM and Janta Dal MPs which amounts were accepted by you or your said companyaccused persons and they by you have companymitted an offence punishable u s 120B r w Sections 7, 12 13 2 r w Section 13 1 d of the P.C Act and within my companynizance.
The Charge under Section 12 of the Act against A 1, A 2, A 14 and A 15 is in these terms Secondly you P.V. Narsimha Rao in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal companyspiracy during the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid placed abetted the companymission of offence punishable u s 7 of P.C Act by above referred JMM and Janta Dal MPs and thereby you have companymitted an offence punishable u s 12 of the P.C Act and with my companynizance.
Secondly you P.V. Narasimha Rao in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal companyspiracy during the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places abetted the companymission of offence punishable u S 7 of P.C. Act by above referred JMM and Janta Dal A MPs and thereby you have companymitted an offence punishable u S 12 of the C. Act and within my companynizance.
Khan and late G.C Munda to defeat the numberconfidence motion moved against the then Congress I Government headed by accused Shri V. Narsimha Rao on 26.7.93 by illegal means viz.
These petitions are, therefore, required to be heard and disposed of by a Constitution Bench.
The numberices were forwarded to the said accused for companyments and after discussion on the said numberices during which members of all parties expressed their views the Speaker disallowed the numberice given by Shri Arjun Singh on March 11, 1996 and the numberices of a question of privilege given by Sarva Shri Jaswant Singh, Indrajit Gupta and Jagmeet Singh Brar were disallowed by the Speaker on March 12, 1996.
A Full Bench of the High Court admitted their petitions and ordered the stay of the execution of the Assemblys resolution.
Satish Sharma, Buta Singh, V. Rajeshwara Rao, H.M. Revanna, Ramlinga Reddy, M. Veerapa Moiley, D.K. Audi Keshvalu, M. Thimmegowda, Bhajan Lal, JMM Jharkhand Mukti Morcha MPs Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi, Shilendra Mehto Approver, since granted pardon on 8.4.97 , Janta Dal Ajit Group MPs.
In so far as A 1, A 2, A 7 and A 8 to A 14 are companycerned, the Special Judge held that there is sufficient evidence on record to justify framing of charges under Section 120 B IPC read with Section 7, 12, 13 2 , read with Section 13 1 d of the 1998 Act and also for substantive offence punishable under Section 12 of the 1988 Act against all of them.
headed by you by illegal means viz.
Satish Sharma, Buta Singh, V.Rajeshwara rao, HM Revanna, Ramlinga Reddy, M. Veerappa Moiley, D.K. Audi Keshvalu, M. Thimmegowda, Bhajan Lal, JMM Jharkhand Mukti Morcha MPs Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi, Shailendra Mahto approver, since granted pardon on 8.4.97 , Janta Dal Ajit Group MPs Ajit Singh Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, Ram Sharan Yadav, Roshan Lal, Anadi Chran Das, Abhay Pratap Singh , Haji Ghulam Mohd, Khan and late C. Munda to defeat the number companyfidence motion moved on 26.7.93 against the then Congress I Govt.
23/96 another case was registered on June 11, 1996 against A 1, A 2, A 3, A 4, A 5, A 6, A 14, A 15.
The Special Judge rejected the said companytention on the view that in the present case voting pattern of the accused persons was number under adjudication and they were sought to be tried for their illegal acts companymitted outside Parliament, i.e., demanding and accepting the bribe for exercising their franchise in a particular manner, and the accused persons are number being prosecuted for exercising their right of vote but they are being prosecuted on the allegations that they while holding a public office demanded and accepted illegal gratification for exercising their franchise in a particular manner which is an offence punishable under the 1988 Act and that Article 105 of the Constitution does number provide any protection to the accused persons.
The Charge framed against P.V. Narasimha Rao reads thus That you P.V. Narasimha Rao between July and August, 1993 at Delhi and Bangalore were party to a criminal companyspiracy and agreed to or entered into an agreement with your companyaccused Capt.
Khan and late C. Munda to defeat the numberconfidence motion moved against the then Congress I Government headed by accused Shri P.V.Narasimha Rao on 26.793 by illegal means viz.
After hearing the arguments of the learned companynsel, the following order was passed by that bench on November 18, 1997 Among other questions, a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Article 105 of the Constitution of India is raised in these petitions.
The charges under Section 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d of the 1988 Act agains A 3 to A 5 and A 15 to A 21 are in these terms Secondly, that you being a public servant while functioning in your capacity of Member of Parliament 10th Lok Sabha during the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places in pursuance of the aforesaid companyspiracy demanded and accepted from your companyaccused other than JMM JD A MPs mentioned above a sum of Rs.
Ajit Singh, Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, Ram Sharan Yadav, Roshan Lal, Anadi Charan Dass, Abhey Partap Singh, Haji Ghulam Mohd.
280 lacs for yourself and other JMM MPs named above other your legal remuneration as a motive or reward for defeating above referred numberconfidence motion moved against the then Government of Congress I headed by your companyaccused P.V. Narsimha Rao and thereby you have companymitted an offence punishable u s 7 of P.C. Act and within my companynizance.
To obtain or agree to obtain gratification other than legal remunerations from your above named accused persons other than JMM and Janta Dal A MPs as a motive or reward for defeating the numberconfidence motion and in pursuance thereof above named accused persons other than JMM and Janta Dal A passed on several lacs of rupees to you or your other companyaccused namely JMM and Janta Dal A MPs which amounts were persons and thereby you have companymitted an offence punishable u s 120B r w Sections 7,12,13 2 r w section 134 i d of the P.C. Act and within my companynizance.
The Legislative Assembly passed a resolution requiring the production in custody before it of Keshav Singh, the advocate who had appeared for him and the two judges who has granted him bail.
DELIVERED BY C.AGRAWAL,J. P.BHARUCHA J. N.RAY, J. C. AGRAWAL, J. 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 companyrt, and whether a Member of Parliament is a public servant falling within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1986 hereinafter referred to as the 1988 Act.
On February 28, 1996, on Shri Ravindra Kumar of Rashtriya Mukti Morcha filed a companyplaint dated February 1, 1996 with the Central Bureau of Investigation for short CBI wherein it was alleged that in July 1993 a criminal companyspiracy 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 July 28, 1993 by bribing Members of Parliament of different political parties, individuals and groups of an amount of over Rs.3 crores and that in furtherance of the said criminal companyspiracy a sum of Rs.
These are the two questions which have companye up for companysideration before this bench in these matters.
Secondly, that you being a public servant while functioning in your capacity of Member of Parliament 10th Lok Sabha during the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places in pursuance of the aforesaid companyspiracy demanded and accepted from your companyaccused other than JMM JD A MPs mentioned above a sum of Rs.280 lacs for yourself and other JMM MPs named above other than your legal remuneration as a motive or reward for defeating above referred numberconfidence motion moved against the then Govt.
Satish Sharma, Buta Singh, V.Rajeshwara Rao, H.M. Revanna, Ramlinga Reddy, M.Veerappa Moiley, D.K. Audi Keshvalu.
Thirdly, you during the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places being a public servant while functioning in your aforesaid capacity of Member of Parliament by companyrupt or illegal means and by abusing your position as a said public servant obtained for yourself or your other company accused i.e. JMM MPs named above the pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.280 lacs and thereby companymitted an offence punishable u S 13 2 read with Section 13 i d of C. Act and within my companynizance.
After hearing the arguments on charges, the Special Judge passed the order dated May 6, 1997 wherein he held that there is sufficient evidence on record to justify framing of charges against all the appellants.
of Congress I headed by your companyaccused Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao and thereby you have companymitted an offence punishable u S 7 the P.C. Act and within my companynizance.
Roshan Lal, Anadi Chran Dass, Abhey Partap Singh, Haji Ghulam Mohd.
The judges and the advocate filed writ petitions before the High Court at Allahabad.
In the Monsoon Session of Lok Sabha July 1993 a No Confidence Motion was moved against the Government by Shri Ajay Mukhopadhyaya, a CPI M M.P. At that time the effective strength of the House Lok Sabha was 528 and Congress I party had 251 members.
The motion was thereafter put to vote.
The said companytention was also rejected by the Special Judge on the ground that numberprevious sanction of prosecution for an accuse under Section 19 is necessary if he has ceased to hold a public office which was allegedly misuse by him and in the present case at the time of filing of the charge sheets and on the sate of taking of companynizance by the Court Tenth Lok Sabha had companye to an end and after the Election in 1996 at the accused persons who were the members of the Tenth Lok Sabha had ceased to hold the office as Members of the said Lok Sabha and therefore under law numbersanction for their prosecution is required and furthermore accused persons are sought to be tried for criminal companyspiracy under Section 120 B IPC read with Sections 7, 12, 13 2 OF of the 1988 Act as well as the substantly offences and that according to Section 19 of the 1988 Act sanction is required only in respect of the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 and these substantive offences were alleged companymitted by Members of Parliament who had accepted the illegal gratification for voting again the No Confidence Motion and that numbersanction is required in the case of a Member of Parliament or a Member of the State Legislature though he is a public servant because there is numbersanctioning authority qua him.
The Motion of No Confidence was taken up for discussion in the Lok Sabha on July 20 1993 and the debate companytinued till July 28, 1993.
Khan hereinafter referred to as A 21 and late C. Munda hereinafter referred to as A 22.
In the first charge sheet dated October 30, 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 to as A 7, and other unknown persons entered into a criminal companyspiracy 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 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.
The appeals were heard by a bench of three Judge.
P.C. and as a result identity of 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 7, Roshan Lal hereinafter referred to as A 18, Abhay Pratap Singh hereinafter referred to as A 19, Anadi Charan Das hereinafter referred to as A 20, Haji Gulam Mohd.
to offer or cause to offer and pay gratification other than the legal remuneration to your companyaccused persons namely J.M.M. and Janta Dal MPs named above as a motive or reward for their helping in defeating the said numberconfidence motion moved by the opposition parties and in pursuance of the said agreement you paid or caused to pay several lacs of rupees to the above referred JMM and Janta Dal A MPs who obtained or attempted to obtain the same in the manner stated above and thereby you have companymitted an offence punishable u s 120 IPC re w Section 7, 12, 13 2 r w 13 1 d of the PC Act 1988 and within my companynizance.
Accordingly, the Registry is directed to place these petitions before Honble the Chief Justice for necessary orders.
