Cash-For-Vote-Scam: Supreme Court Junks Congress MLA’s Plea Refusing To Discharge Him Of Corruption Charges

The alleged scam, came to light when a sting operation was conducted by a news channel, CNN - IBN, aired on August 2, 2010, ahead of the 2010 Rajya Sabha Elections. Six MLAs were allegedly caught in the operation. The other people involved were JMM’s Simon Marandi and Teklal Mahato, Congress’ Yogendra Sao and Swana Lakra, and Rajesh Ranjan.

A bench of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice P.S. Narasimha, and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the matter.

Advocate Jayesh Gaurav appeared for the petitioner.

In the pertinent matter, a sting operation was conducted by the correspondent of the TV channel exposing the alleged attempt to obtain pecuniary gratification by the MLAs for casting their vote under monetary consideration with regard to Rajya Sabha Election.

As per the averments made, the correspondent of the news channel, Kumar Aashish, met the petitioner-accused at his official resident at MLA quarter, in the Vidhan Sabha Complex, Ranchi, as representative of K.D. Singh, candidate of Rajya Sabha. He requested Akela to support him in second preferential vote in favour of his candidate. Pursuant to which, Akela allegedly agreed to do so for One Crore for himself in the second preferential vote.

The entire raw video footage of the sting operation was reduced into compact discs and later produced before the I.O. of the Vigilance Bureau.

The petitioner-accused, however, argued that even if the allegations are accepted to be true, no offence, as alleged will be made out for which the court had proposed the charges. Then further argued that as Section 13(1)(a) and (b) PC Act deals with habitually accepting for obtaining for oneself any gratification, and that allegations lacks in the present case.

It was also contended that it was the correspondent who offered to pay illegal gratification, but no attempt was made on the part of the petitioner-accused to obtain any pecuniary advantage.

“It is not the case of the prosecution that no amount was paid at any stage, as such, in this view of matter, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) PC Act will not made out”, the petitioner had argued.

However, the CBI submitted that the definition of Section 7 under the Act is wide enough to cover an act wherein any public servant attempts to obtain from any person any undue advantage with intention to perform or cause to perform of public duty improperly or dishonestly.

Noting the materials placed, and arguments advanced, a bench of Justice Gaurav Kumar Chowdhary while rejecting the petition observed, “It is submitted that there are sufficient materials for framing of charge under Section 7 of P.C. Act. It is also submitted that Section 171B(3) of the I.P.C. makes an attempt to obtain gratification to exercise any electoral right punishable under this provision. After having considered rival submissions on behalf of both sides, I find that there are sufficient material for framing of charge under Section 7 of the P.C. Act and Section 171 B of the IPC”.

Cause Title: Uma Shankar Akela v Union of India Through CBI