Back
1997 Supreme(Del) 29
High Court Of Delhi
P.V.NARASIMHA RAO - Appellant
Versus
STATE (CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION) - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous 2733 of 1996
Decided On : 01/03/1997
A.K.DUTT, Aman Lekhi, ARUN BHARDWAJ, ARUN BIRBAL, Farida Khan, I.U.KHAN, K.C.Kaushik, L.SAHNI, MANISH MALHOTRA, P.N.LEKHI, P.P.MALHOTRA, R.D.Rana, R.K.Anand, RATNA KOCHHAR, S.Lal, Sonia Malhotra, Vijay Chaudhary, VIPUL MAHESHVARI
Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 105(2) — Privilege and immunity — Criminal conspiracy hatched by some MPs for voting in a particular manner in Lok Sabha during the vote on the motion of no confidence — Whether be made a subject matter of court of proceeding ? — Yes — Immunity given to the MPs under Article 105(2) cannot be extended to those cases where they have committed an offence outside Parliament or have entered into criminal conspiracy to do something in Parliament.
Criminal Procedure Code 1973 - Section 438 — Section 120B, IPC and Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act — JMM Bribery case — Illegal gratification — Charge sheet filed — Special Judge issued summons — Application for regular bail pending before Special Judge — Apprehension of being arrested at the hands of the court on appearance — Held : No apprehension of fleeing from justice or tampering with the evidence — Bail granted till the disposal of regular bail application and for a week thereafter. Section 438 — Apprehension of arrest by a person accused of non-bailable offence either at the hands of the police or the instance of Magistrate — A person who is yet to loose his freedom by being arrested asks for freedom in the event of arrest.
Interpretation of Statutes - Liberal construction — While interpreting a statute, the construction which would promote the general legislative purpose underlying the provision in question is to be preferred to a construction which would not — If literal meaning of the legislative language used would lead to results which would defeat the purpose of Act — The court would be justified in disregarding the literal meaning and adopt a liberal construction which effectuates the object of legislature.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 2(c)(viii) — JMM Bribery case — Illegal gratification — Held : MPs being public servants can be prosecuted under the provision of the Act — Act was passed to make more effective provision for prevention of bribery and corruption which is a social evil — Merely because there is no sanctioning authority for the prosecution of an MF it cannot be said that the provision of the Act will not be applicable to him.
Rule of Law - No person, more so a person who at the relevant time was a Prime Minister of the country can be allowed to dig the roots of democracy and sever it the constitutional morality.
( 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 started 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, Shibu 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 a motive or reward and in pursuance thereof 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 was from this amount that a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was paid to Simon Mirandi on or around 30th 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 Ferozeshah 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
