R. S. SODHI ( 1 ) SHRI P. V. Narasimha Rao and Shri Buta Singh have filed criminal Appeal Nos. 638 of 2000 and 621 of 2000 respectively challenging the findings of the Special Judge holding them guilty of the charges framed against them while the Rashtriya Mukti morcha has filed Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2001 challenging the acquittal of Gapt. Satish Sharma, Shri V. Rajeshwar Rao, Shri h. M. Revanna, Shri Ramalinga Reddy, Shri M. Veerappa Molly, Shri d. K. Audikesavulu, Shri M. Thimme Gowda, Shri Bhajan Lal and Shri ajit Singh, charged and tried along with the appellants. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts of the case, as noted by the trial court are : "1. That in the general election of 10th Lok sabha in 1991, Congress (I) emerged as single largest party. It formed the government at the centre under the leadership of accused, p. V. Narasimha Rao (A-1 ). Monsoon Session of 10th lok Sabha was to commence on 26. 7. 93. A "no confidence Motion" was moved against the Govt. by shri Ajay Mukhopadhya, a C. P. I. (M) M. P. The effective strength of Lok Sabha at that moment was 528 and Congress (I) had 251 members. Thus, the government headed by accused P. V. Narasimha Rao (A-1) was short of 14 M. Ps. for proving its majority on the floor of house. It is alleged that the opposition parties had made their intention clear to move "no Confidence Motion" against the government well in advance. On 28. 7. 93 "no Confidence Motion" was put to vote after the debate and it was defeated with the support of four J. M. M. M. Ps. i. e. Shri Suraj mandal (A-3), Shibu Soren (A-4), Shri Simon marandi (A-5) and Shailender Mahto (A-6) respectively as well as A-16 to A-21 namely s/shri Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, Ram Sharan yadav, Roshan Lal, Anadi Charan Dass, Abhey pratap Singh and Haji Gulam Mohd. Khan respectively and late Shri G. C. Munda, M. P. the break-away group of Janta Dal (A) Party. 2. Complainant, Ravinder Kumar, President of Rashtriya Mukti Morcha filed a complaint with c. B. I. alleging that Shri P. V. Narasimha Rao had hatched a criminal conspiracy with Shri v. C. Shukla, Shri R. K. Dhawan, Capt. Khan respectively and late Shri G. C. Munda, M. P. the break-away group of Janta Dal (A) Party. 2. Complainant, Ravinder Kumar, President of Rashtriya Mukti Morcha filed a complaint with c. B. I. alleging that Shri P. V. Narasimha Rao had hatched a criminal conspiracy with Shri v. C. Shukla, Shri R. K. Dhawan, Capt. Satish sharma, Shri Ajit Singh, Shri Bhajan Lal and shri Lalit Suri with the object to prove the majority of the Government on the floor of the house by resorting to bribing some of the members of the Parliament to the extent of over rs. 4 crores. On the basis of said complaint, CBI registered four cases R. C. Nos. 1 (A)/96 to R. C. No. 4 (A)/96/cbi/acu-VIII/n. D. against four J. M. M. M. Ps. (A3 to A6) since discharged ). However, no FIR was registered against A-1, A-2, A-14, A-15 and others named in the complaint. Feeling aggrieved, complainant ravinder Kumar filed a writ petition in High Court of Delhi for direction to C. B. I. to register a proper FIR as per allegations in the complaint. In the aforesaid writ petition directions were issued by Division Bench of Hon ble High court and pursuant to that C. B. I. registered case r. C. No. 5 (A)/96/acu-VIII/c. B. I. / N. D. against the persons named in the complaint. ( 3 ) PURSUANT to the investigation conducted in case R. C. Nos. l (A)/96 to R. C. Nos. 5 (A)/96-ACU- viii/c. B. I. / N. D. , prosecution sought to try shri P. V. Narasimha Rao (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as A. I), Capt. ( 3 ) PURSUANT to the investigation conducted in case R. C. Nos. l (A)/96 to R. C. Nos. 5 (A)/96-ACU- viii/c. B. I. / N. D. , prosecution sought to try shri P. V. Narasimha Rao (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as A. I), Capt. Satish Sharma (hereinafter referred TO to As A. 2), Suraj Mandal (hereinafter referred TO to as A. 3), Shri Shibu Soren (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as A. 4), Shri Simon marandi (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as A. 5), Shri shailender Mahto (approver) (hereinafter referred TO to as A. 6), Shri Buta Singh (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as A. 7), Shri v. Rajeshwar Rao (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as a. 8), Shri H. M. Revenna (hereafter REFERRED TO to as a. 9), Shri Ramalinga Reddy (hereafter REFERRED TO to as A. 10), Shri M. Veerappa Molly (hereinafter referred TO to as A. 11), Shri D. K. Audikeshvulu (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as A. 12), Shri M. Thimme gowda (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as A. 13), shri Bhajan Lal (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as a. 14), Shri Ajit Singh (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as A. 15), Shri Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as A. 16), Shri Ram sharan Yadav (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as A. 17), shri Roshan Lal (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as a. 18), Shri Anadi Charan Dass (hereinafter referred TO to as A. 19), Shri Abhay Partap Singh (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as A. 20) and Shri Haji gulam Mohd. Khan (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as a. 21), vide three different charge sheets filed in the court U/s 173 Cr. P. C. First charge sheet was filed on 30. 10. 1996. In furtherance of that charge sheet second and third charge-sheets were filed under Section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. on 9. 12. 1996 and 22. 1. 1997 respectively. ( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution as revealed from the respective charge sheets and the statement of the approver Shailender Mahto recorded under section 164 Cr. P. C. is that monsoon session of 10th Lok Sabha was scheduled to commence on 26. 7. 1993. Much prior to the commencement of monsoon session it was clear that opposition parties intended to bring no confidence motion against the minority government headed by accused P. V. Narasimha Rao (A-1 ). P. C. is that monsoon session of 10th Lok Sabha was scheduled to commence on 26. 7. 1993. Much prior to the commencement of monsoon session it was clear that opposition parties intended to bring no confidence motion against the minority government headed by accused P. V. Narasimha Rao (A-1 ). At that point of time effective strength of Lok Sabha was 528 and strength of Congress (I) members in the Lok Sabha was 251. Thus, there was a real possibility of defeat of the government on the floor of the house. In order to avoid the situation, a conspiracy was hatched between accused P. V. Narasimha Rao (A-1) and his supporters namely Capt. Satish Sharma (A-2), shri Buta Singh (A-7), Shri V. Rajeshwar rao (A-8), Shri H. M. Revenna (A-9), Shri Ramalinga reddy (A-10), Shri M. Veerappa Molly (A-11), shri D. K. Audikeshvulu (A-12), Shri M. Thimme Gowda (A-13) and Shri Bhajan Lal (A-14) to procure the support of sufficient number of members of Parliament belonging to the opposition for the government by luring them with the offer of bribe. On the other hand, some members of Parliament belonging to the opposition namely 4 JMM, MPs, Suraj Mandal (A-3), shibu Soren (A-4), Simon Marandi (A-5), approver shailender Mahto and Janta Dal (A) M. Ps. namely shri Ajit Singh (A-15), Shri Ram Lakhan Singh yadav (A-16), Shri Ram Sharan Yadav (A-17), shri Roshan Lal (A-18), Shri Anadi Charan Dass (A-19), Abhay Partap Sigh (A-20), Shri Hazi gulam Mohd. Khan (A-21) and late Shri G. C. Munda also smelled the opportunity and started the efforts to extract maximum advantage from the situation. As a result, a multi cornered conspiracy was hatched amongst A-1 to A-21 and late Shri G. C. Munda against the no confidence motion by giving of bribe to those members of parliament and acceptance of bribe by those members of parliament. In order to achieve the object of the conspiracy various participants played different roles at Delhi and Bangalore. Shri P. V. Narasimha Rao was the kingpin of the conspiracy. ( 5 ) IT is alleged that hectic political activities to save the government started in July, 1993. Capt. Satish Sharma (A-2) took active role in the conspiracy and he mobilized and provided the funds for bribing the opposition members. It is alleged that at the relevant time, Capt. Shri P. V. Narasimha Rao was the kingpin of the conspiracy. ( 5 ) IT is alleged that hectic political activities to save the government started in July, 1993. Capt. Satish Sharma (A-2) took active role in the conspiracy and he mobilized and provided the funds for bribing the opposition members. It is alleged that at the relevant time, Capt. Satish Sharma was the minister of Petroleum in the Government headed by shri P. V. Narasimha Rao (A-1 ). Shri B. N. Safaya was his Additional Private Secretary. Shri B. N. Safaya during the period between April 1993 to May 1994 received substantial amounts on behalf of Capt. Satish Sharma from M/s Jindal saw Pipes, M/s Videocon International Limited, m/s Essar Group of Companies, M/s Reliance industries Limited and M/s Bindal Agro industries. After receiving the money from those business houses, Shri B. N. Safaya used to inform Capt. Satish Sharma on telephone and then carry the suitcases containing money to Capt. Satish Sharma (A-2 ). It is alleged that on 24. 7. 93 one party was hosted by Capt. Satish sharma at his residence. During said party, same suitcases supposedly containing money were brought from the farm house of Capt. Satish Sharma. On 25. 7. 93 in the morning, capt. Satish Sharma visited the residence of Shri P. V. Narasimha Rao. Even accused Buta singh (A-7) also visited the residence of Shri p. V. Narasimha Rao (A-1) in the morning of 25. 7. 93. It is also alleged that around 30th or 31st of July,1993 Simon Marandi (A-5) visited shri B. N. Safaya, Additional Private Secretary of capt. Satish Sharma and told that he had come to collect the money which Capt. Satish Sharma had promised and after confirming from Capt. Satish sharma, Shri B. N. Safaya brought a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs from the residence of Capt. Satish Sharma and delivered it to Simon Marandi in the evening. ( 6 ) IT is also alleged that four J. M. M. , m. Ps. namely, Shri Suraj Mandal (A-3), Shibu soren (A-4) Shri Simon Marandi (A-5) and approver shri Shailender Mahto (A-6) did realise the potential of the situation. Thus, they got together in order to extract maximum advantage out of the predicament of Congress (I) Govt. ( 6 ) IT is also alleged that four J. M. M. , m. Ps. namely, Shri Suraj Mandal (A-3), Shibu soren (A-4) Shri Simon Marandi (A-5) and approver shri Shailender Mahto (A-6) did realise the potential of the situation. Thus, they got together in order to extract maximum advantage out of the predicament of Congress (I) Govt. Approver Shailender Mahto approached Shri ashok Rao Deshmukh, M. P. few days before the voting on no confidence motion and requested him to arrange a directs meeting between him and the Prime Minister Shri P. V. Narasimha Rao (A-1), as he along with other three J. M. M. M. Ps. namely Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren and Simon marandi (A-3 to A-5) wanted to vote against no confidence motion, if some of their demands were met. On 25. 7. 93 Shri Ashok Rao Deshmukh met accused Shri P. V. Narasimha Rao (A-1) and apprised him about said talks with approver shailender Mahto. Shri P. V. Narasimha Rao (A- 1) told him to ascertain the demands of J. M. M. M. Ps. Thereafter, Sailender Mahto informed that Ashok Rao Deshmukh that they would put their demands directly to the Prime Minister. This information was conveyed by Shri Ashok Rao deshmukh to Shri P. V. Narasimha Rao (A-1), who then advised Ashok Rao Deshmukh to take J. M. M. M. Ps. to Shri V. Rajeshwar Rao (A-8) for further discussion. ( 7 ) SHRI Ashok Rao Deshmukh contacted Shri v. Rajeshwar Rao (A-8) on 26. 7. 93 and fixed a meeting between J. M. M. , M. Ps. and V. Rajeshwar Rao (A-8) for 11. 00 A. M. At the stipulated time, j. M. M. M. Ps. arrived at Andhra Bhawan and Shri ashok Rao Deshmukh took them to the residence of accused V. Rajeshwar Rao (A-8), 7, Swaranamukh apartments, Andhra Bhavan. V. Rajeshwar Rao (A-8) also confirmed about the message received by him from Shri P. V. Narasimha Rao and thereafter shri Ashok Rao Deshmukh left the flat. It is alleged that Shri V. Rajeshwar Rao (A-8) had a separate conversation with Suraj Mandal (A-3) and made some offer to him. After said discussion, they came back to the room and thereafter j. M. M. M. Ps. left the residence of Shri v. Rajeshwar Rao (A-8 ). Suraj Mandal (A-3) told other J. M. M. M. Ps. It is alleged that Shri V. Rajeshwar Rao (A-8) had a separate conversation with Suraj Mandal (A-3) and made some offer to him. After said discussion, they came back to the room and thereafter j. M. M. M. Ps. left the residence of Shri v. Rajeshwar Rao (A-8 ). Suraj Mandal (A-3) told other J. M. M. M. Ps. (A-4 to A-6) that discussion with V. Rajeshwar Rao (A-8) was not fruitful as he was offering a meagre amount and he suggested a direct meeting with the Prime minister. In the evening of 26. 7. 93, all the four j. M. M. M. Ps. , A-3 to A-6, collected at the residence of Shibu Soren (A-4 ). From there, they went to the residence of Shri Buta Singh and he took those J. M. M. M. Ps. to the residence of shri P. V. Narasimha Rao (A-1 ). It is further alleged that initially at the residence of Shri p. V. Narasimha Rao, talks regarding creation of jharkhand Council took place and Shri p. V. Narasimha Rao (A-1) assured that he would call for the file relating to creation of jharkhand Council from the Ministry and do the needful. Thereafter, Suraj Mandal (A-3), p. V. Narasimha Rao (A-l) and Buta Singh (A-7) went to a separate room for sometime. After the discussion, they came out from the said room and accused P. V. Narasimha Rao (A-1) told the other j. M. M. ,. M. Ps. (A-4 to A-6) that he wanted their help for the moment and in return he would also help them and fulfill the promises made to Suraj Mandal (A-3) in the closed door discussion. While coming back from the residence of Shri P. V. Narasimha Rao (A-1) on the insistence of Shailender Mahto (approver) and Shibu Soren (A-4), Suraj Mandal (A-3) informed that the closed door discussion was to their advantage. He further informed that talks regarding payment of money to them had taken place, but the amount to be paid was not specified. ( 8 ) ON 26. 7. 93, no confidence motion moved by shri Ajay Mukhopadhaya, M. P. was put to discussion. After the conclusion of debate, motion was put to vote on 28. 7. He further informed that talks regarding payment of money to them had taken place, but the amount to be paid was not specified. ( 8 ) ON 26. 7. 93, no confidence motion moved by shri Ajay Mukhopadhaya, M. P. was put to discussion. After the conclusion of debate, motion was put to vote on 28. 7. 93 and it was defeated by the help of votes given by JMM MPs (A-3 to A-6) and Janta Dal break-away group MPs (A-16 to A-21) and late Shri G. C. Munda, MP.) 8a. It is further alleged that on 29. 7. 1993 at about 8. 00 A. M. 4-5 persons visited the residence of Suraj Mandal at 14, Ferozeshah Road, new Delhi and delivered five suitcases and one bag which were kept locked in a room. It is also alleged that in the same morning in pursuance of the telephone call from Suraj Mandal (A-3), approver Shailender Mahto (A-6) visited his residence. Accused V. Rajeshwar Rao (A-8) was already present there and in his presence Suraj mandal (A-3) told the approver Shailender Mahto (A-6) that Rs. 50 lakhs have already been paid and remaining amount would be paid within two days. During said conversation accused V. Rajeshwar rao (A-8) informed that all the 4 JMM MPs (A-3 to a-6) would be paid Rs. 50 lakhs each and the break away group of Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav (A-16) would also be paid Rs. 50 lakhs each besides the allotment of petrol pumps and residential plots of H. U. D. A. in Haryana. Accused V. Rajeshwar" Rao (A-8) further informed that the m. Ps. who had absented or abstained from voting on no confidence motion would be paid Rs. 30 lakhs each. ( 9 ) IT is further alleged that on 30. 7. 93, 3 boris and 1 suit case supposedly containing money were delivered at the residence of Suraj mandal (A-3 ). ( 10 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, the money delivered at the residence of Suraj Mandal was the bribe money which was distributed by the four JMM MPs amongst each other and the said amount was deposited in Punjab National bank, Naroji Nagar, New Delhi with the help of one Sushil Kumar, Chartered Accountant who was maintaining his bank accounts in the said branch. It is alleged that most of the aforesaid bribe money reached Punjab National bank, Naroji Nagar Branch by the evening of 31. 7. 93, but since it was already late and counting of such a huge cash was impossible on that date, entire cash received in the branch on 31. 7. 93 was kept in the strong room. On the next day, i. e. 1. 8. 93 money was counted and various accounts were opened as per the instructions of JMM M. Ps. ( 11 ) IT is alleged that on the basis of final counting a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs was deposited in the S. F. Account N0. 17108 of Suraj mandal (A-3), one Sugam F. D. Account No. 195 was opened in the joint names of all the 4 JMM mps (A-3 to A-6) with Rs. 30 lakhs. One joint s. F. Account in the name of four JMM MPs. (A-3 to a-6) was also opened with the deposit of rs. 10,000/- in order to facilitate the transfer of interest etc. from the F. D. Account. Similarly, in accordance with the earlier instructions of Shailender Mahto (A-6) one sugam F. D. Account No. 196 was opened with Rs. 39. 80 lakhs in the joint names of Shailender Mahto and his wife Abha Mahto, although his wife did not sign the account opening form. Another f. D. Account No. 194 was opened in the joint names of Shibu Soren (A-4), his wife Smt. Rupi and their two sons, Basant and Hemant with Rs. 30 lakhs. The account opening form was signed by all except Hemant Kumar. One Sugam F. D. Account no. 197 was also opened in the joint names of simon Marandi (A-5) and his wife Smt. Sushila hansda with Rs. 12 lakhs although account opening form was not signed by Smt. Sushiia Hansda. ( 12 ) ON 2. 8. 93 Simon Marandi visited Punjab national Bank, Naroji Nagar and deposited another sum of Rs. 21 lakhs in F. D. A/c No. 197. After opening of Sugam F. D. Accounts by three JMM m. Ps. namely Shibu Soren (A-4), Simon Marandi (A-5) and approver Shailender Mahto (A-6) they also opened Saving Account Nos. 19100, 19307 and 18983 respectively on 8. 10. 93, 18. 9. 93 and 10. 9. 93. 21 lakhs in F. D. A/c No. 197. After opening of Sugam F. D. Accounts by three JMM m. Ps. namely Shibu Soren (A-4), Simon Marandi (A-5) and approver Shailender Mahto (A-6) they also opened Saving Account Nos. 19100, 19307 and 18983 respectively on 8. 10. 93, 18. 9. 93 and 10. 9. 93. ( 13 ) IT is further alleged that accused M. V. Molly (A-11) at the relevant time was Chief minister of Karnataka. He also played an active role in the conspiracy and he was also one of of the leaders who had been assigned the job of organising funds for bribing JMM MPs. It is alleged that Shri M. Veerappa Moily (A-11) came to delhi on 25. 7. 93 by morning flight from bangalore and he camped at Delhi till 29. 7. 93. During his stay, he called on accused P. V. Narasimha Rao (A-1) repeatedly and he also made three attempts to contact Shri V. Rajeshwar Rao (A- 8) but he could meet him only on one occasion. He further called on Capt. Satish Sharma (A-2), ajit Singh (A-15) and K. Karunakaran. ( 14 ) IT is also alleged that even before the visit of accused M. Veerappa Molly (A-ll) to delhi, hectic political activities were going on at his official residence at Bangalore. Shri h. M. Revenna (A-9), Shri Ramalinga Reddy (A-10), shri D. K. Audikeshvulu (A-12) and Shri M. Thimmegowda (A-13) and others had been frequently visiting the official residence of accused m. Veerappa Moily (A-ll) and some suitcases supposedly containing money were delivered by them. ( 15 ) IT is alleged that accused D. K. Audikeshvulu (A-12) was very close to accused V. Rajeshwar rao (A-8 ). He (A-12) was also camping at Delhi from 24. 7. 93 to 29. 7. 1993. During said period, he had visited V. Rajeshwar Rao (A-8 ). Even on 26. 7. 93, he was seen at the residence of accused v. Rajeshwar Rao (A-8) by Shri Ashok Rao Deshmukh when he had visited said place for introducing four JMM MPs to Shri V. Rajeshwar Rao (A-8 ). Shri D. K. Audikeshvulu (A-12) also left for bangalore on 29. 7. 1993 by evening flight of indian Airlines. It is alleged that Shri d. K. Audikeshvulu is the owner of number of companies/firms under various names and address. Shri D. K. Audikeshvulu (A-12) also left for bangalore on 29. 7. 1993 by evening flight of indian Airlines. It is alleged that Shri d. K. Audikeshvulu is the owner of number of companies/firms under various names and address. ( 16 ) M/s Karnataka Breweries and Distilleries (P) Limited (hereinafter REFERRED TO to M/s k. B. D. L.) is a major liquor manufacturing company. Shri D. K. Audikeshvulu (A-12) is the managing Director of the said company. He is also one of the partners of M/s Sapthagiri enterprises, which is also engaged in the business of manufacture and bottling of liquor. M/s KBDL is maintaining Current Account No. 448 with Canara Bank, R. M. V. Extension, Bangalore. M/s Sapthagiri Enterprises is also maintaining current Account No. 446 with the same bank. The aforesaid two concerns are also maintainingaccounts with Lakshmi Vilas Bank, main branch, bangalore. ( 17 ) IT is alleged that Shri D. K. Audikeshvulu issued Cheque Number 348507 dated 29. 7. 93 for rs. 30 lakhs on the account of M/s. Sapthagiri enterprises drawn on Canara Bank R. M. V. Extension, bangalore in favour of M/s Padmavati Enterprises. He also issued Cheque No. 372415 and 372414 both dated 30. 7. 1993 for Rs. 6,17,349/- and rs. 14,78,125/- respectively favouring Shri v. P. Ramakrishna, an employee of M/s. K. B. D. L. ( 18 ) THE cheque No. 348507 for Rs. 30 lakhs issued in favour of M/s Padmavati Enterprises was credited to its Current Account No. 754 held with the aforesaid bank on 30-7-1993. On the same day, the said amount was withdrawn from the current account of M/s. Padmavati Enterprises through cheque dated 30. 7. 93 purported to have been signed by Sh. K. Muniraja, proprietor of the said firm. However, the cash payments against the said cheque was received by Shri Dwarka Nath, an employee of m/s. K. B. D. L. The funds against other two cheques mentioned above were also withdrawn in cash on 30-7-93. On the reverse of cheque no. 372415 issued by M/s. K. B. D. L. in favour of shri V. P. Ramakrishna details of Rs. 50,95,474/- have been mentioned which is total of the amount of aforesaid three cheques. This indicates that funds of aforesaid three cheques were received by Shri Dwarka Nath on 30-7-93. He delivered that amount to Sh. D. K. Audikeshvulu (A-12 ). 372415 issued by M/s. K. B. D. L. in favour of shri V. P. Ramakrishna details of Rs. 50,95,474/- have been mentioned which is total of the amount of aforesaid three cheques. This indicates that funds of aforesaid three cheques were received by Shri Dwarka Nath on 30-7-93. He delivered that amount to Sh. D. K. Audikeshvulu (A-12 ). ( 19 ) IT is also alleged that M/s. Padmavati enterprises is a non existent firm. The account opening form relating to the bank account of m/s. Padmavati Enterprises have been filled up by shri Dwarka Nath who is a close relative of accused D. K. Audikeshvulu (A-12) and employee of M/s. K. B. D. L. That Shri Dwarka nath filled said account opening form at the instance of accused D. K. Audikeshvuly (A-12) and said account was introduced by m/s. Sreevari Enterprises having account no. 732 with Canara Bank, R. M. V. Extension, Bangalore. Said firm has also been found to be non existent. ( 20 ) IT is further alleged that Shri m. Thimmegowda is the Managing Director of m/s. S. P. R. Group Holding (P) Limited. It is maintaining a Current Account no. 1968 with canara Bank, Seshadripuram Branch, Bangalore. ( 21 ) THAT on 30-7-93 Shri M. Themrnegowda approached the branch manager and applied for a temporary over-draft of Rs. 1 Crore for 10 days on the pretext of meeting some urgent business commitments. The branch manager then contacted shri V. A. Prabhu the then General Manager, circle Office, Canara Bank, Bangalore on telephone and requested for sanction of said temporary over-draft. Shri V. A. Prabhu obtained the approval on telephone and conveyed the sanction to Sheshadripuram branch after the banking hours. However, accused M. Themmegowda insisted for withdrawal of the whole amount on 30-7-1993 itself. Canara Bank, Sheshadripuram branch, then arranged the money from cash chest, canara Bank, R. M. V. Extension. As soon as the cash was received in the branch, Shri M. Themmegowda (A-13) issued cheques Nos. 959799 and 959798, both dated 30-7-1993 for Rs. 60 lakhs and Rs. 25 lakhs in favour of M/s. Ranganatha Group and m/s. Yellamma Enterprises. He also issued a self cheque No. 959800 dated 30-7-93 for Rs. 15 lakhs on the account of M/s. S. P. R. Group holdings (P) Limited. 959799 and 959798, both dated 30-7-1993 for Rs. 60 lakhs and Rs. 25 lakhs in favour of M/s. Ranganatha Group and m/s. Yellamma Enterprises. He also issued a self cheque No. 959800 dated 30-7-93 for Rs. 15 lakhs on the account of M/s. S. P. R. Group holdings (P) Limited. The funds against the cheques issued in favour of M/s. Ranganatha group and M/s Yellamma Enterprises were credited to the respective accounts by way of transfer. As soon as-the said funds were credited to those accounts, Shri M. S. Chelvaraju, partner of m/s. Ranganatha Groups and Shri T. Sivarama, proprietor of M/s. Yellama Enterprises issued self cheque dated 30-7-93 for Rs. 60 lakhs and rs. 25 lakhs respectively and withdrew the cash. Similarly, Shri M. Themmegowda also withdrew a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs against above REFERRED TO self cheques drawn on the account of M/s. S. P. R. Groups Holding (P) Limited. After collecting aforesaid funds, Shri T. Sivarama was asked to leave the bank, whereas Shri M. S. Chelavuraju, accompanied Shri M. Themmegowda to his residence alongwith said Rs. 1 Crore withdrawn from the bank. After sometime, Shri M. Thinunegowda left his residence with 2 big VIP suitcases supposedly containing said Rs. 1 Crore. It is further alleged that Shri M. Thimmegowda delivered those two suitcases at the residence of Shri m. V. Moily (A. 11) at Bangalore in the evening hours of 30-7-93. Accused H. M. Revenna (A. 9) and accused Ramalinga Reddy (A. 10) also arrived at the residence of accused M. Verappa Moily (A. 11) when the aforesaid suitcases were delivered. It is further alleged that Shri M. Verappa Moily (A. 11), Shri H. M. Revenna (A. 9) and Ramalinga reddy (A. 10) remained together at the residence of Shri M. Veerappa Moily for sometime. During said period; Shri M. Veerappa Moily (A. 11) asked his household servant to bring one suitcase and one hand bag from the first floor room of his residence which supposedly contained the money. Thereafter, Shri H. M. Revanna (A. 9) and ramalinga Reddy (A. 10) left the residence of shri M. Veerappa Moily (A. 11) in a car with 3 suitcases and one hand bag including the two suitcases delivered by accused m. Thinunegowda for Bangalore Airport. Thereafter, Shri H. M. Revanna (A. 9) and ramalinga Reddy (A. 10) left the residence of shri M. Veerappa Moily (A. 11) in a car with 3 suitcases and one hand bag including the two suitcases delivered by accused m. Thinunegowda for Bangalore Airport. ( 22 ) IT is further alleged that accused shri D. K. Audikeshvulu (A. 12) came from Bangalore to Delhi on 30-7-93 by Indian Airlines evening flight with one V. I. P. suitcase supposedly containing aforesaid money withdrawn by him from the bank. Shri H. M. Revenna (A. 9) and ramalinga Reddy (A. 10) also came to Delhi by the same flight alongwith said 3 suitcases and hand bag supposedly containing money. The flight landed at Delhi Airport at about 10. 30 P. M. They were received by Shri Bachan Singh, Roop Ram and one Darmyan Singh attendant of M/s Mohan breweries and Distilleries Limited (hereinafter REFERRED TO to M/s. M. B. D. L.) Guest house, who had also been detailed by Shri k. Narayanan, Care Taker to receive them. They loaded the 3 V. I. P. Suitcases and one hand bag in the taxi driven by Shri Roop Ram, whereas v. I. P. suitcases brought by Shri d. K. Audikeshvulu (A. 12) they all left for andhra Bhawan, where D. K. Audikeshvulu (A. 12), h. M. Revenna (A. 9) and Rama Linga Reddy (A. 10) called on Shri V. Rajeshwar Rao (A. 8) at swaranamukhi Apartments Andhra Bhawan, New delhi. After some discussion, they left for hotel Claridges. It is further alleged that after making arrangement for the stay of h. M. Revenna (A. 9), Ramalinga Reddy (A. 10) d. K. Audikeshvuly (A. 12) left for M/s. M. B. D. L. Guest House. The three V. I. P. suitcases and one handbag brought by H. M. Revenna (A. 9), Ramalinga reddy (A. 10) were unloaded by Roop Ram at Hotel claridges. ( 23 ) IT is further alleged that accused Buta singh (A-7) also visited Bangalore at the relevant time. He came back from Bangalore to delhi on 30-7-1993 by same Indian Airlines Flight i. C. No. 404 in which Shri H. M. Revenna (A-9), Shri ramalinga Reddy (A-lo) and Shri D. K. Audikeshvulu (A-12) travelled. ( 24 ) IT is further alleged that in the morning of 31-7-93 Roop Ram taxi driver reached hotel Claridges. He came back from Bangalore to delhi on 30-7-1993 by same Indian Airlines Flight i. C. No. 404 in which Shri H. M. Revenna (A-9), Shri ramalinga Reddy (A-lo) and Shri D. K. Audikeshvulu (A-12) travelled. ( 24 ) IT is further alleged that in the morning of 31-7-93 Roop Ram taxi driver reached hotel Claridges. Shri Vijay Handa and Shri harsharan Lal, PWs also reached there in the case of Shri Vijay Handa. Accused d. K. Audikeshvulu (A-12) reached Hotel claridges on 31-7-1993 at about 7. 00 A. M. in the maruti Car of M/s. M. B. D. L. Shri H. M. Revenna (A-9) and Shri Ramalinga Reddy (A-10) came out of the hotel alongwith three V. I. P. Suitcases and the hand bag, which they had carried from bangalore. Those were loaded in the taxi of roop Ram and thereafter, they all left for andhra Bhawan. On arriving at Andhra Bhawan, accused D. K. Audikeshvulu (A-12), H. M. Revenna (A- 9), Ramalinga Reddy (A-10), Vijay Handa and harsharan Lal went up-stairs leaving behind the v. I. P. suitcases, and hand bags in respective cars. They came down after about one hour alongwith V. Rajeshwar Rao (A-8 ). Thereafter, at the instance of accused D. K. Audikeshvuly (A-12) the hand bag and one V. I. P. suit-case which were kept in the back-seat of taxi and the VIP suitcase brought by him was shifted to the white maruti Car of Vijay Kumar Handa, who was a person well known to accused V. Rajeshwar Rao (A-8 ). Shri H. M. Revenna (A-9) thereafter sat in the taxi of Roop Ram. The white Maruti Car driven by Vijay Kumar Handa along with P. W. Harsharan Lal and P. W. Ganga Singh left for the residence of Suraj Mandal (A-3) at Ferozeshah road, New Delhi and Roop Ram was asked to follow them. They visited the residence of Suraj mandal and delivered aforesaid 4 VIP suitcases and hand bags to him. Thus, according to the prosecution, the bribe money was delivered at the residence of accused Suraj Mandal (A-3 ). ( 25 ) IT is alleged that accused Bhajan Lal also played a very important role to achieve the object of the conspiracy. On 24-7-93, he visited the residence of accused Ajit Singh in the morning. Thus, according to the prosecution, the bribe money was delivered at the residence of accused Suraj Mandal (A-3 ). ( 25 ) IT is alleged that accused Bhajan Lal also played a very important role to achieve the object of the conspiracy. On 24-7-93, he visited the residence of accused Ajit Singh in the morning. He requested Ajit Singh for supporting Congress (I) Government stating that fate of the government headed by sh. P. V. Narasimha Rao (A-1) was in his hands. He further delivered three packets containing Rs. 1 crore each to accused Ajit Singh as a motive or reward for seeking the support of his group for the government. Those packets were unloaded from his car by Capt. Dilawar Singh. One of those packet, was opened after accused Bhajan Lal left and it was found to contain 200 wads of currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination. ( 26 ) IT is also alleged that accused Ajit Singh (A- 15) wanted to gobble up entire money. However, accused Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav (A-16) caught the wind of the matter. He called on accused Ajit singh (A-15) in the morning of 26-7-93 and insisted for his share of Rs. 15 lakhs from the amount received by him from Bhajan Lal. Accused ajit Singh (A-15) denied having received any amount from Bhajan Lal (A-14) and told Ram Lakhan singh Yadav (A-16) that Bhajan Lal himself was a corrupt person who accused others of corruption. After the aforesaid incident, accused Ajit Singh (A-15) called for a meeting of MPs belonging to his party. During said meeting, he expressed his desire to vote in favour of no confidence motion against Congress (I) Government. This led to heated exchanges between Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav (A-16) and Ajit Singh (A-15) and both accused each other for hobnobbing and bargaining with Congress (I) Leaders. Thereafter, Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav (A. 15) walked out of the meeting. Shri Ram Sharan yadav, Roshani Lal, Abhay Pratap Singh and Anadi charan Dass namely (A-18 to A. 20) as well as late shri G. C. Munda also followed him. ( 27 ) IT is further alleged that 7 M. Ps namely ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, Ram Sharan Yadav, Roshan lal, Abhay Pratap Singh, Anadi Charan Dass, Hazi gulam Mohd. Khan and G. C. Munda again assembled at the residence of Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav at 4. 00 PM. ( 27 ) IT is further alleged that 7 M. Ps namely ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, Ram Sharan Yadav, Roshan lal, Abhay Pratap Singh, Anadi Charan Dass, Hazi gulam Mohd. Khan and G. C. Munda again assembled at the residence of Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav at 4. 00 PM. During meeting, they decided to form a separate entity under the leadership of Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav and vote against no confidence motion. Shri Bhajan Lal visited Ram lakhan Singh Yadav during said meeting and he also had some secret discussion. Shri Ram Lakhan singh Yadav spoke telephonically to Shri p. V. Narasimha Rao and assured him that his group would split by evening and Government would survive. He also pleaded that Prime minister should take care of the rest of the things. Said meeting was also attended by captain Satish Sharma and during those discussion, accused Bhajan Lal assured those M. Ps substantial sum in cash. Captain Satish Sharma also assured allotment of petrol pumps either to them or their family members. ( 28 ) IT is further alleged that on 28-7-93 6 M. Ps. of Janta Dal (A) break away. group namely Ram lakhan Singh Yadav, Ram Sharan Yadav, Roshan lal, Anadi Charan Dass, Abhay Partap Singh and late Shri G. C. Munda again assembled at the residence of Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav. On that day. Captain Satish Sharma (A. 2), Bhajan lal (A. 14), V. C. Shukla, K. Karunakaran and jitender Prasad met those M. Ps Shri Bhajan Lal delivered some suitcases at the residence of Ram lakhan Singh Yadav on the said day, upon which parkash Chand Yadav, son of Ram Lakhan Singh, informed the members belonging to break away group that Bhajan Lal has fulfilled the promises which he made. ( 29 ) IT is alleged that on 28-7-93 Shri V. C. Shukla contacted accused Bhajan Lal (A-14) on telephone and informed him that Hazi Gulam Mohd. Khan was present in his parliament house office. Accused Bhajan Lal then went to parliament house and returned after half an hour with Hazi gulam Mohd. Khan. It is further alleged that bhajan Lal and Captain Satish Sharma then assured that Rs. 20 lakhs would be paid to every member of Janta Dal break away group led by Ram lakhan Singh Yadav before the voting and another sum of Rs. Khan. It is further alleged that bhajan Lal and Captain Satish Sharma then assured that Rs. 20 lakhs would be paid to every member of Janta Dal break away group led by Ram lakhan Singh Yadav before the voting and another sum of Rs. 20 lakhs each would be paid after the voting of no confidence motion. Besides that, they also promised the allotment of petrol pumps to those M. Ps or their family members. From the residence of Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, all those 7 M. Ps. proceeded to parliament house along with Bhajan Lal and they received their respective shares of Rs. 20 lakhs each before leaving for parliament on 28. 7. 93. It is further alleged that subsequently on 28. 7. 93 above REFERRED TO 7 M. Ps led by Ram Lakhan Singh yadav voted against no confidence motion and motion was defeated. ( 30 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, accused ajit Singh sent Captain Dilawar Singh Sangwan to meet Hazi Gulam Mohd. Khan and Ram Sharan yadav to persuade them to rejoin the Janta dal (A ). Both Haji Gulam Mohd. Khan and Ram sharan Yadav admitted before Captain Dilawar singh Sangawan about receiving a payment of rs. 20 lakhs in cash from Bhajan Lal. They also told him about promise of allotment of petrol pumps. ( 31 ) IT is alleged that Bhajan Lal was camping at Delhi to pursue the object of conspiracy from 23-7-93 to 2-8-93, except on 26-7-93. During this period, he was in constant touch with P. V. Narasimha Rao (A-1), Captain Satish sharma (A-2) and other accused persons. He also actively mobilized the funds before voting on no confidence motion and obtained rs. 30/rs. 40 lakhs from the office bearers of saraswati Kunj House Building society for granting licence to the society for colonization. It is also alleged that bhajan Lal extended hospitality to Hazi Gulam mohd. Khan and G. C. Munda at Hotel Rajanhs from 1- 8-93 to 3-8-93 and paid the bill for rs. 40,000/ -. He also provided a taxi to Hazi gulam Mohd. Khan for a period of one month and paid the bill of Rs. 17,000/ -. It is also alleged that bhajan Lal extended hospitality to Hazi Gulam mohd. Khan and G. C. Munda at Hotel Rajanhs from 1- 8-93 to 3-8-93 and paid the bill for rs. 40,000/ -. He also provided a taxi to Hazi gulam Mohd. Khan for a period of one month and paid the bill of Rs. 17,000/ -. It is further alleged that accused Bhajan Lal in a public meeting at Hissar on 11-8-93 admitted to have engineered the defection of 7 M. Ps of Janta Dal (A) within 48 hours which led to survival of congress (I) Government. ( 32 ) IT is further alleged that as a reward, accused Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav was inducted as a union minister in the cabinet of Shri p. V. Narasimha Rao (A-1) in February, 1994. He was also allotted a plot of land in HUDA from the discretionary quota of Chief Minister i. e. Bhajan Lal. Besides that Ram Sharan Yadav acquired a plot of land in Mohan Garden, uttam Nagar, New Delhi for Rs. 2. 75 lakhs during october, 1993 and constructed a palatial house costing more than Rs. 20 lakhs on the said plot. It is further alleged that son of Ram sharan Yadav namely Ajay Akela has also been allotted a petrol pump at Khagaria District in Bihar in September, 1994 for which he applied for 10-3-1993. ( 33 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, Prakash chand Yadav called one Shri Anil Sanghi, chartered Accountant in August, 1993 and sought his advice for laundering some money received by his father. Accordingly, on the advice of anil Sanghi, a company in the name of M/s patliputra Credit and Securities Limited was registered with the Registrar of Companies. Account of the said company was opened with state Bank of India, Main Branch, New Delhi. Thereafter, Parkash Chand Yadav started delivering cash to Shri Anil Sanghi for arranging cheques for crediting the amount to the account of the said company. Sh. Anil sanghi opened two current accounts in the names of M/s Anil Sanghi and Associates and m/s Ganpati Investment Consultants with Jammu and kashmir Bank, NOIDA branch on 1. 3. 94. It is alleged that during the period w. e. f. 5. 3. 94 to 31. 7. 94, Shri Anil Sanghi deposited Rs. 1. 5 crores in the said accounts in cash as provided by parkash Chand Yadav. 3. 94. It is alleged that during the period w. e. f. 5. 3. 94 to 31. 7. 94, Shri Anil Sanghi deposited Rs. 1. 5 crores in the said accounts in cash as provided by parkash Chand Yadav. Against those cash deposits. Anil Sanghi then issued cheques from the said bank accounts in favour of M/s patliputra Credit and SecuritiesLimited. Thus, as per prosecution, the amount received as bribe by Parkash Chand Yadav was laundered through said device. ( 34 ) IT is also alleged that after the defeat of no confidence motion, accused Roshan Lal has deposited a sum of Rs. 12. 80 lakhs during July to November, 1993 in South Indian Bank and State bank of India, Delhi and Punjab and Sindh Bank and Central Bank of India in Dehradun. He has also acquired a flat on 6. 9. 93 for a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs, out of which, he paid a sum of rs. 5,51,000/- approximately till date. ( 35 ) IT is further alleged that during the investigation of this case, in order to avoid defection, accused Suraj Mandal, Shibu soren, Simon Marandi and Shailender Mahto, all jmm MPs (A-3 to A-6) in pursuance of criminal conspiracy have fabricated false document i. e. donation coupons, proceeding book and books of accounts with the intention to use those documents during the judicial proceedings or any other proceedings initiated in accordance with law before a public servant, so as to suggest that above REFERRED TO amounts deposited in the bank accounts were the proceeds of donation received in favour of JMM party. ( 36 ) ON the aforesaid allegations, prosecution has filed three charge-sheets seeking to try above REFERRED TO accused persons for having committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B IPC read with 193 IPC and Sections 7, 12, 13 (2) read with 13 (l) (d) of P. C. Act, 1988 and the substantive offences therein. ( 37 ) ON appearance, accused persons were supplied with the requisite copies of the charge sheets. During the course of arguments on charge accused persons contended that no case for framing of charge against them was made out. ( 37 ) ON appearance, accused persons were supplied with the requisite copies of the charge sheets. During the course of arguments on charge accused persons contended that no case for framing of charge against them was made out. Besides that, they claimed immunity from trial in view of Article 105 of Constitution of India on the ground that trial of the case would amount to an enquiry into the motives of the members of Parliament for voting on no confidence motion. They also took a plea that a member of parliament is not a public servant within the ambit of the P. C. Act, 1988 and as such no case under P. C. Act, 1988 is made out. All the pleas of accused persons were rejected and they were directed to be charged for having committed the offence of conspiracy punishable under Sections 120-B IPC read with Sections 7, 12 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of P. C. Act, 1988 and 193 IPC and substantive offences committed by respective accused persons. ( 38 ) FEELING aggrieved accused persons went in revision. Hon ble High Court dismissed the revision petition and rejected legal pleas of accused persons as well as their contentions on merits of the case. Accused persons then preferred TO to file Special Leave Petition in hon ble Supreme Court. Matter was initially heard by three Judges Bench of the Apex Court. Since important constitutional questions were involved, the case was REFERRED TO to the constitution bench of the Appellate Bench. Constitution Bench disposed of the reference vide three different judgments. As per majority view, it was held that member of parliament is a public servant within the scope of P. C. Act, 1988. ( 39 ) THE claim of alleged bribe taking MPs except Ajit Singh (A-15) seeking immunity from prosecution under Article 105 of the Constitution of India was accepted by majority judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court. However, majority view held that since accused ajit Singh (A-15) did not vote on no confidence motion in the Lok Sabha, he could not claim immunity under Article 105 of the Constitution of India. Regarding remaining accused persons i. e. alleged bribe givers, it was held that no immunity under Article 105 of the Constitution was available to them. However, majority view held that since accused ajit Singh (A-15) did not vote on no confidence motion in the Lok Sabha, he could not claim immunity under Article 105 of the Constitution of India. Regarding remaining accused persons i. e. alleged bribe givers, it was held that no immunity under Article 105 of the Constitution was available to them. ( 40 ) IN view of the finding of the Constitution bench of the Apex Court, accused Ram Lakhan singh Yadav (A-16), Ram Sharan Yadav (A-17), roshan Lal (A-18), Anadi Charan Dass (A-19), abhay Partap Singh (A-20) and Hazi Gulam Mohd. Khan (A-21) were discharged. Charges under section 120-B IPC read with sections 7,12, 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of P. C. Act, 1988 and substantive offences under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (l) (d) of P. C. Act, 1988 against accused Suraj Mandal (A-3), Shibu Soren (A-4) and simon Marandi (A-5) were dropped. Since the offence punishable under Section 193 IPC is a magisterial trial and it was allegedly committed much after the alleged transaction of bribing of mps in furtherance of conspiracy, it was directed that separate charge sheet for offence punishable under Section 193 IPC be filed in the court of competent jurisdiction. ( 41 ) CHARGES against accused persons, namely, Shri p. V. Narasimha Rao (A-1), Captain Satish sharma (A-2), Shri Buta Singh (A-7), Shri v. Rajeshwar Rao (A-8), Shri H. M. Revenna (A-9), shri Ramalinga Reddy (A-10), Shri M. Veerappa molly (A-ll), Shri D. K. Audikesavulu (A-12), shri M. Themmegowda (A-13) and Shri Bhajan Lal (A- 14) were amended suitably and they all were charged for offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 7, 12 and 13 (1) (d) of P. C. Act, 1988 as well as substantive offence punishable under Section 12 of the P. C. Act, 1988. They all pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. ( 42 ) ACCUSED Ajit Singh (A-15) was charged for having committed offences punishable under sections 120-B read with Sections 1, 12, 13 (2) read with Sections 13 (1) (d) of P. C. Act, 1988. He also pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. They all pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. ( 42 ) ACCUSED Ajit Singh (A-15) was charged for having committed offences punishable under sections 120-B read with Sections 1, 12, 13 (2) read with Sections 13 (1) (d) of P. C. Act, 1988. He also pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. ( 43 ) THE learned Judge, on appreciation of evidence placed before him, found that charges against Shri Buta Singh and Shri p. V. Narasimha Rao had been substantiated by the Prosecution while against the other accused they stood not proved, consequently, went on to hold the appellants guilty and further by his order dated 12. 10. 2000 imposed the following sentence; "keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and gravity of offence and the mitigating circumstances pointed out on behalf of accused Shri P. V. Narasimha Rao and Shri Buta singh for the offence punishable u/s 120-B ipc read with sections 1, 12, 13 (2) read with section 13 (l) (d) of P. C. Act, 1988, I hereby sentence convict Shri P. V. Narasimha Rao and Shri buta Singh to undergo R. I. for the period of 3 years. They are further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakhs respectively. In the vent of any of the accused failing to pay the fine imposed, he shall undergo R. I. for further period of 6 months. For the offence punishable under Section 12 of the P. C. Act, 1988, both the convicts are further sentenced to undergo RI for the period of 3 years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1 lakh each. In the event of any of the accused failing to pay the fine imposed, he shall undergo RI for further period of 6 months. Substantive sentences awarded to both the convict persons for respective offences shall run concurrently. " ( 44 ) SHRI R. K. Anand, learned senior counsel appearing for Shri p. V. Narasimha Rao, submitted that the Constitution Bench of the supreme Court adjudicated upon question of law that arose for consideration before it, namely : (I) Whether Article 105 of the Constitution of india confers immunity on a Member of parliament from being prosecuted in a criminal court for an offence involving offer or acceptance of bribe? (II) Whether a Member of Parliament is excluded from the ambit of Prevention of Corruption act, 1988 for the reason that - he is not a public servant as defined under Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and he is not a person under clauses (a) (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. ( 45 ) THE Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 17. 4. 1998 [ (1988) 4 SCC 626 ] held that : "we now set down the effect upon the accused of our finding. We have held that the alleged bribe-takers who voted upon the no confidence motion, that is suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi, shailendra Mahto, Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, Ram sharan Yadav, Roshan Lal, Anadicharan Das, abhay Pratap Singh and Haji Gulam Mohammed (Accused 3,4,5,6,16,17,18,19,20 and 21) are entitled to the immunity conferred by Article 105 (2 ). ( 46 ) D. K. AUDIKESAVULU and M. Thenunegowda (Accused 12 and 13) were at all relevant times private persona. The trial on all charges against them must proceed. When cognizance of the charges against them was taken, Buta Singh and H. M. Revanna (Accused 7 and 9) were not public servants. The question of sanction for their prosecution does not, therefore, arise and the trial on all charges against them must proceed. P. V. Narasimha Rao, Satish Sharma, V. Rajeshwara rao, Ramalinga Reddy, M. Veerappa Moily and bhajan Lal (Accused 1,2,8,10,11 and 14) were public servants, being either Members of parliament or a State Legislature, when cognizance of the charges against them was taken. They are charged with substantive offences under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal code and Section 12 of the said Act. Since no prior sanction is required in respect of the charge under Section 12 of the said Act, the trial on all charges against them must proceed. Ajit Singh (Accused 15) was a public servant, being a Member of Parliament, when cognizance of the charges against him was taken. He is charged with substantive offences under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 7 and 13 (2) of the said Act. The trial of the charge against him under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code must proceed. He is charged with substantive offences under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 7 and 13 (2) of the said Act. The trial of the charge against him under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code must proceed. The appeals shall now be placed before a Bench of three learned Judges for hearing on any other points that may be involved and for final disposal. ( 47 ) THE CBI filed a review petition dated 12. 11. 1998 against the judgment dated 17. 4. 1998 which was dismissed on 16. 12. 1998. The Supreme Court further vide order dated 5. 5. 1999 disposed of the Special Leave Petitions with the following order: ". . . . WHILE the matter was heard before a three- judge Bench of this Court, it was felt necessary that the matter, should be REFERRED TO to the constitution Bench for expressing opinion as to whether the Members of Parliaments are "public servants" within the ambit of Prevention of corruption Act and whether privilege under article 105 of the Constitution of India can at all be claimed. These two questions have now been answered by the Constitution Bench in three different judgments since reported in 1998 (4) SCC 626 [p. V. Narasimha Rao V. State (CBI/spe)]. . . . . . . it is not necessary for us to go into any other questions raised in these appeals since those questions have to be answered by the learned Trial Judge bearing in mind the law laid down by the Constitution bench in the aforesaid case. Needless to mention that any observation that has been made by the high Court on the merits of the proceeding will not weigh with the learned Trial Judge in disposing of the matter and the contentions raised before him. . . " ( 48 ) IN view of the law enunciated by the Supreme Court, the learned trial Judge vide order dated 4. 6. 1999 dropped proceedings and charges under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 1, 12, 13 (2) read with Section 13 (l) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption act 1988 framed against Shri Suraj Mandal, Shri Shibu Soren, Shri simon Marandi, Shri Shailender Mahto, Shri Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, shri Ram Saran Yadav, Shri Roshan Lal, Shri Anadi Charan Das, shri Abhay Pratap Singh and Shri Haji Gulam Mohd. Khan although the learned trial Judge ruled that charge under Section 193 ipc against Shri Suraj Mandal, Shri Shibu Soren and Shri simon Marandi shall proceed. The trial for charges under Section 193 IPC against the aforesaid accused persons was separated and directed to be tried by a separate court. ( 49 ) ALSO following the Supreme Court judgment, an amended charge was framed on 20. 7. 1999 against the remaining accused. The charges framed were under Section 120-B IPC read with sections 1, 12, 13 (2) read with Section 13 (l) (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act. ( 50 ) LEARNED counsel submitted that, inter alia, the question that needs to be adjudicated in this appeal is whether shri Shailender Mahto could have been made an Approver, granted pardon and his testimony used as that of an accomplish protected by the pardon. Shri Rajinder Singh, learned Senior Counsel for Shri buta Singh, contended that the entire case of the conspiracy theory is based on the solitary testimony of PW-1, Shri shailender Mahto. He submitted, while adopting the argument of shri R. K. Anand that Shri Shailender Mahto cannot be made an approver for reasons that even before Shri Shailender Mahto s testimony can be considered, the Approver must first satisfy the test of reliability. He submitted that from the contradictions and improvements made during deposition in Court by Shri shailender Mahto there can only be one conclusion, namely, that pw-1 is a dishonest witness. Therefore, his testimony cannot be relied upon and ought to be thrown out lock, stock and barrel in which case the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge framed against his client.