Hyderabad: The judgment against late former PM P.V. Narasimha Rao in the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha bribing case by the Special ACB Court in Delhi and the order of the Supreme Court in the same case has become crucial in the cash-for-vote case that’s hounding the TD.
ACB prosecutors and defence counsels appearing for TD MLA Revanth Reddy and other accused are relying on the verdict in the JMM bribing case to a large extent. The defense counsels have been contending that the prosecution, as well as the special ACB court, are misinterpreting the law laid down by the apex court in the JMM case.
In Narasimha Rao’s case, the SC had held that an MP does not enjoy immunity under Article 105(1) or under Article 105(3) of the Constitution from being prosecuted before a criminal court for an offence involving offer or acceptance of bribe for the purpose of speaking or by giving his vote in Parliament or in any committees thereof, as an MP is a public servant under Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The prosecutors in the cash-for-vote scam have been contending that Mr Revanth Reddy is a public servant by virtue of being an MLA and it has been proven that he had offered money to the TRS MLA to vote in favour of the TD candidate in MLC polls.
The defence says that in the JMM issue, the case was registered after voting on a no confidence motion, while Mr Revanth Reddy and the others were caught before the voting. Also, they say that the JMM case is related to voting in Parliament and not to other elections. Hence the SC judgment cannot be applicable in the cash-for-vote scam. The defence is also relying on the argument that in ACB cases, the money generally used to trap is public money, but here the money belonged to private persons.
