2002 (3) TMI 917 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Immunity under Article 105 of the Constitution of India
2. Definition of 'Public Servant' under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
3. Validity of Approver's Testimony
4. Reliability and Corroboration of Evidence
5. Parameters for Revisional Jurisdiction against Acquittal

Analysis of Judgment:

1. Immunity under Article 105 of the Constitution of India:
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that members of parliament who voted on the no-confidence motion were entitled to immunity under Article 105(2). This immunity extended to alleged bribe-takers who voted, but not to those who did not vote, such as Ajit Singh, nor to the alleged bribe-givers. As a result, charges against several accused were dropped, but the trial proceeded against others, including P.V. Narasimha Rao and Buta Singh.

2. Definition of 'Public Servant' under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
The Supreme Court clarified that members of parliament are considered public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This interpretation allowed the trial to proceed against those who were public servants at the time of the alleged offenses.

3. Validity of Approver's Testimony:
The trial court granted pardon to Shailender Mahto, making him an approver. The defense contended that Mahto, protected by Article 105(2), could not be an approver. The court held that the pardon was validly granted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which allows any person involved in the offense to be granted pardon. The court emphasized that the grant of pardon is a pact between the state and the individual for full and true disclosure.

4. Reliability and Corroboration of Evidence:
The court found Shailender Mahto's testimony unreliable due to material contradictions, improvements, and omissions in his statements. The court noted that his statements lacked independent corroboration, which is essential for the testimony of an accomplice. The court highlighted that corroboration must come from an independent source and not from the accomplice's own statements. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to corroborate the crucial "close door meeting" between the Prime Minister, Buta Singh, and Suraj Mandal with independent evidence.

5. Parameters for Revisional Jurisdiction against Acquittal:
The court reiterated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for exercising revisional jurisdiction against acquittal. It emphasized that interference is justified only in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in procedure or a manifest error of law leading to a miscarriage of justice. The court found no such exceptional circumstances in the present case. The court held that the trial court had appreciated the evidence correctly and there was no illegality or perversity in its findings.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeals of P.V. Narasimha Rao and Buta Singh, setting aside their conviction and sentence, and acquitted them of all charges. The court also dismissed the criminal revision petition challenging the acquittal of other accused, reaffirming the trial court's decision.