P.V. NARASIMHA RAO ETC. ETC. versus STATE (CBL/SPE) ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 870 · Decided: 17-04-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 9 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
P.V. NARASIMHA RAO ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE (CBl/SPE) ETC. ETC. 
APRIL 17, 1998 
[S.C. AGRA WAL, G.N. RAY, DR. A.S. ANAND, S.P. BHARUCHA 
ANDS. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Article I 05 (2)-/mmunity of Member of Parliament 
jiwn prosecution in respect of vote given in Parliament-Fourteen Member~ 
C of Parliament (MPs) alleged to have received bribes ji-om other MPs in order 
to defeat motion of no-confidence against government of the da}~Motion of 
no-confidence defeated-Prosecution for offences under the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) ands. 120-B Jndiw1 Penal Code (/PC) launched 
against both bribe takers and bribe givers-Whether bribe givers and bribe 
D takers being MPs could claim immunity jiwn prosecution-Held, Per majority, 
bribe givers do not enjoy immunity under Article 105 (2) and the trial 
against them for substantive offences under s-12 PCA and s.120-B IPC must 
proceed; fi1rther held, bribe takers entitled to immunity conferred by Article 
105 (2)-Per Minority held, an MP does not enjoy immunity under Article 
I 05 (2) from being prosecuted for offence of offer or acceptance of bribe for 
E purpose of speaking or by giving his vote in Parliament or in any com mi/lees 
thereof 
F 
Constitution of India, Article 105 (3)-Whether, on facts, MPs giving 
bribes could seek immuni~v ji-om prosecution-Held, no. 
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, s.2(c)-Whether Member of 
Parliament a public servant-Held, yes-Indian Penal Code I860, s.21-
lnterprelation of Statutes. 
Criminal Law-Preventi<;m of Corruption Act I 988, s.19 rlw ss. 7, I 0, 
I 1, 13 and I 5 thereof-Sanction for prosecution of MP for offence of offer and 
G acceptance of bribes for voting in Parliament-Held, per majority-MPs 
cannot be prosecwed for offences under Ss. 7, I 0, I I and I 3 PCA for want 
of an authority competent lo grant sanction thereof-Per Minority held, in 
absence of sanction court can take cognisance of offences mentioned in 
s.19(1) but before filing charge sheet prosecuting agency shall obtain 
permission of Chairman of Rajya Sabha or Speaker of Lok Sabha as the case 
H may be. 
870 
f 
P.V. NARASIMHA RAO v. STATE (CBI/SPE) 
871 
On July 26, 1993, a motion of no-confidence was moved in the Lok A 
Sabha against the minority government of PVN. The support of 14 member 
was needed to have the no-confidence motion defeated. On July 28, I 993, the 
no-confidence motion was lost, 251 members having voted in support and 265 
against. Four Members of Parliament (MPs) owing allegiance to the JMM, 
six MPs owing allegiance to the JD (AS) group voterl against the non-
confidence motion. AS, an MP owing allegiance to the JD (AS) abstained B 
from voting thereon. 
The case of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was that the 
abovenament !V(Ps agreed to and did receive bribes, to the giving of which 
PVN, MP and Prime Minister, and nine others including three MPs and four C 
MLAs were parties, to vote against the non-confidence motion. A prosecution 
being launched against the aforesaid alleged bribe givers and bribe takers 
subsequent to the vote upon the non-confidence motion, cognizance was 
taken by the Special Judge, Delhi. 
The persons sought to be charged as aforesaid filed petitions in the D 
High Court at Delhi seeking to quash the charges. The High court dismissed 
• 
the partitions. In this court the appeals were heard by a bench of three 
learned judges and then referred to a Constitution Bench. The appellants 
contended that under Article 105 they were immune from the prosecution 
and that, in any event, they could not be prosecuted under the Prevention of E 
Corruption Act, 1988. (PCA). 
Disposing of the appeals, this court. 
HELD : Per Majority (Bharucha, J. for himself and S. Rajendera Babu, 
J. with G.N. Ray, J. concurring): 
F 
I. Appellants were public servants, being either members of Parliament 
or a State legislature, when cognizance of the charges against them was 
taken. They were charged with substantive offences under s.120-B of the 
IPC and s.12 of the PCA. Since no prior sanction was required in respect G 
of the charge under s.12 PCA, the trial on all charges against them had to 
proceed. (941-H; 942-A( 
2.1. The alleged bribe takers, other than AS, had the protection of 
Article I 05 (2) and were not answerable in a Court of law for the alleged 
conspiracy and agreement. The charges against them had to fail. (907-H) H 
• 
872 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
2.2 Articl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.