9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether an MP is a 'public servant' under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Whether the entries in diaries and loose sheets are admissible as evidence under Section 34 of the Evidence Act. 3. Whether the prosecution needed sanction to prosecute the petitioners under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. Whether there was sufficient material to frame charges against the petitioners. Summary: Issue 1: Whether an MP is a 'public servant' under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 The court examined whether an MP is a 'public servant' u/s 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was argued that MPs do not hold an office as they are not appointed or removed and the Constitution refers to their position as a 'seat'. However, the court concluded that MPs perform public duties and hold an office by virtue of which they are required to perform public duties. Thus, MPs are considered 'public servants' under Section 2(c)(viii) of the Act. Issue 2: Whether the entries in diaries and loose sheets are admissible as evidence under Section 34 of the Evidence Act The court analyzed the admissibility of entries in diaries and loose sheets under Section 34 of the Evidence Act. It was determined that the diaries were not books of account regularly kept in the course of business. The entries did not contain sufficient details and were not maintained contemporaneously. Thus, they were not admissible under Section 34. Furthermore, the court noted that these entries alone could not be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. Issue 3: Whether the prosecution needed sanction to prosecute the petitioners under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code For Shri L.K.Advani, the court noted that the issue of sanction was not raised, and thus, it did not delve into it. For Shri V.C.Shukla, the court observed that he was a member of a newly constituted Lok Sabha at the time of the charge sheet and not the one during which the alleged offences were committed. Thus, no sanction was required for his prosecution. Issue 4: Whether there was sufficient material to frame charges against the petitioners The court examined whether there was sufficient material to frame charges u/s 120B IPC and Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It concluded that the prosecution failed to provide prima facie evidence of acceptance or obtainment of illegal gratification by the petitioners. The entries in diaries and loose sheets were not admissible as they could not be converted into legal evidence. The court emphasized that criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt, and mere probabilities are insufficient. Consequently, the court quashed the charges and proceedings against the petitioners. Conclusion: The court allowed the petitions, set aside the orders of the Special Judge, and quashed the proceedings pending decision before the lower court.
|
