Back
1997 Supreme(Del) 20
High Court Of Delhi
P.V.NARASIMHA RAO - Appellant
Versus
STATE (CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION) - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) 2733 of 1996
Decided On : 01/01/1997
A.K.DUTT, ARUN BHARDWAJ, ARUN BIRBAL, Farida Khan, I.U.KHAN, K.C.Kaushik, Lovkesh Sahni, MUNISH MALHOTRA, P.N.LEKHI, P.P.MALHOTRA, R.D.Rana, R.K.Anand, RATNA KOCHHAR, S.Lal, Sonia Malhotra, Vijay Chaudhary, VIPUL MAHESHVARI
Members of Parliament are public servants within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the immunity granted to them under Article 105 (2) of the Constitution does not extend to offences committed outside Parliament.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - ANTICIPATORY BAIL - MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT - WHETHER PUBLIC SERVANTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - WHETHER IMMUNITY UNDER ARTICLE 105 (2) OF THE CONSTITUTION EXTENDS TO OFFENCES COMMITTED OUTSIDE PARLIAMENT - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 2 (C) (VIII) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - GRANT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO FORMER PRIME MINISTER AND FORMER UNION MINISTER ACCUSED OF CONSPIRACY TO BRIBE MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT TO VOTE AGAINST NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION.
Fact of the Case:
A petition for anticipatory bail was filed by the former Prime Minister and a former Union Minister, who were accused of conspiring to bribe Members of Parliament (MPs) to vote against a no-confidence motion in the Lok Sabha. The petitioners contended that MPs were not public servants within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that even if they were, the immunity granted to MPs under Article 105 (2) of the Constitution extended to offences committed outside Parliament.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that MPs were public servants within the meaning of Section 2 (c) (viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as they held an office by virtue of which they were authorized or required to perform a public duty. The court further held that the immunity granted to MPs under Article 105 (2) of the Constitution did not extend to offences committed outside Parliament. The court also held that the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail, considering their roots in society, the fact that the charge sheet had already been filed, and the pendency of their application for regular bail before the Special Judge.
Issues: 1. Whether Members of Parliament are public servants within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act? 2. Whether the immunity granted to Members of Parliament under Article 105 (2) of the Constitution extends to offences committed outside Parliament? 3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 2 (c) (viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which defines a public servant to include any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorized or required to perform any public duty. The court held that MPs fell within this definition, as they held an office and performed a public duty by virtue of their position. 2. The court interpreted Article 105 (2) of the Constitution, which grants immunity to MPs for anything said or any vote given by them in Parliament. The court held that this immunity did not extend to offences committed outside Parliament, as the petitioners were accused of conspiring to bribe MPs to vote against a no-confidence motion, which was an offence committed outside Parliament. 3. The court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, including the petitioners' roots in society, the fact that the charge sheet had already been filed, and the pendency of their application for regular bail before the Special Judge. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail, as there was no apprehension that they would flee from justice or tamper with evidence.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, directing that each petitioner be released on bail in the event of arrest, on furnishing a personal bond and one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/superior Officer/Special Judge. The bail was to enure till the Court of the Special Judge decided the regular bail application of the petitioners and for a week thereafter.
( 1 ) THE Special Judge after taking cognizance of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, summoned the petitioner to appear before him on 30th October, 1996. Apprehending arrest at the hands of the Court immediately on his appearance before the Special Judge, the petitioner has filed this petition for the grant of anticipatory bail. The facts in short relevant for deciding this petition are:
( 2 ) THAT after the general elections of 10th Lok Sabha in 1991, the Congress (I) emerged as the single largest party. On being invited by the President to form the Government, the Congress (I) under the leadership of Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao formed the Government at the Centre. Monsoon session of Lok Sabha began on 26th July, 1993 with a no confidence motion being moved against the Government by Mr. Ajaya Mukhopadhyay, a CPI (M) MP. The effective strength of the Lok Sabha at that time was 528 and the Congress (I) had 251 Members in the Lok Sabha. The Government headed by Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao was thus short of 14 Members of Parliament for a simple majority since it required 265 votes to defeat the motion of no confidence. Though, the motion of no confidence was tabled on 26th July, 1993, however, the opposition parties had made, well in advance, known their proposal to move a no confidence motion against the Government. It is alleged that the Congress (I) under the leadership of Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao arted hectic exercise to secure the support of various opposition parties/groups in order to defeat the motion. It is also alleged that the petitioner along with his co-accused, namely, S/sh. Satish Sharma, Buta Singh, Suraj Mandal, Shilt Saren, Shailendra Mehato, Simon Mirandi and other known and unknown persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to defeat the no confidence motion by resorting to giving and accepting illegal gratification as amotive or reward and in pursuance there of the four JMM MPs, namely, S/sh. Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Shailendra Mehato and Simon Mirandi accepted illegal gratification to vote against the motion and because of their votes and some other votes, the Government led by Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao survived and the motion of no confidence was defeated.
( 3 ) ONE Ravinder Kumar - President of Rashtriya Mukti Morcha, filed a complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation alleging that Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao had hatched a criminal conspiracy with S/sh. V. C. Shukla. R. K. Dhawan, Satish Sharma, Ajit Singh, Bhajan Lal and Lalit Suri to prove the majority of the Government on the floor of the House by bribing some of the Members of Parliament by an amount of over rupees three crores. Even though the complaint disclosed the commission of a cognisable offence, no FIR was registered and the said Mr. Ravinder Kumar, therefore, filed a petition in the High Court of Delhi for a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to register the FIR. After a direction had been given by a Division Bench of this Court, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR against the petitioner and some of the other accused persons.
( 4 ) DURING investigation it was revealed that various industrialists during that period paid a sum of about Rs. 13 crores to Capt. Satish Sharma and it w as from this amount that a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was paid to Simon Mirandi on or around 30lh or 31st July, 1993 at the official residence of S. N. Safaya, Additional Private Secretary to Capt. Satish Sharma. Mr. Safaya had earlier brought this amount from Capt. Satish Sharma for payment to Simon Mirandi. Investigation also revealed that on 29th July, 1993 money was delivered to Suraj Mandal at his Feroze shah Road residence in five suitcases and one bag. Again on 30th July, 1993 three bories and one suitcase were delivered at the residence of Suraj Mandal, which were later on taken away on the same day by Simon Mirandi to the residence of Shailendra Mehto. Currency notes contained in three bories and one suitc
