SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 349

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJAN GOGOI, N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
Rajat Prasad – Appellant
Versus
C.B.I. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 747 of 2010 & 748 of 2010
Decided On : 24-04-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Offence disclosed by sting operation cannot be obliterated merely because the operation may be illegal.

Headnote:(a) Sting operation – Essentially a deceptive operation, though designed to nab a criminal – It raises certain moral and ethical questions – An innocent victim is lured into committing a crime on the assurance of absolute secrecy and confidentiality of the circumstances. (Para 10)

       (b) Sting operation – The means deployed to establish the commission of the crime itself involves a culpable act – A crime does not stand obliterated or extinguished merely because it is claimed to be committed in public interest – Mens rea – Whether giving of money was really a bribe is a matter of trial – Gap of 12 days between the sting operation and its circulation is another relevant factor – Intent to gain political mileage cannot undermine the importance of proof of criminal intent – a A journalist or anybody else having no connection with the favour that is allegedly sought in exchange for the bribe offered – Cannot be imputed with criminal intent so as to attract offence under Section 12, PC Act or Section 120B IPC. (Para 15, 16)

       (2009) 8 SCC 106; 356 US 359 (1958); 287 US 435 (1932); [2002] 1 SCR 297; [1988] 2 SCR 903; [1980] AC 402; [2001] UKHL 53 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       FIR was registered u/s 12, PC Act r/w section 120B, IPC. Petition for quashing the FIR was dismissed.

       After investigation and filing of charge sheet by CBI the trial court framed charges.

       Accused persons filed Cr. Misc. petition for quashing of charges framed which was dismissed.

       Finding of the Court:

       Prima facie materials are available for a fuller probe into the precise role of A-4 and A-6 in the alleged conspiracy.

       Result: Impugned judgment affirmed.

JUDGMENT

RanjanGogoi, J. –

1. The refusal of the Delhi High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal charges framed against the accused-appellants has been challenged in the present appeals. Specifically, the appellants, Rajat Prasad and Arvind Vijay Mohan who are the sixth and fourth accused respectively in CC Case No. 28 of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as A-6 and A-4) in the Court of the learned Special Judge, CBI, Delhi had assailed the order dated 24/25.04.2007 passed by the learned Trial Court framing charges against them under Section 120-B of the IPC read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter for short ‘the Act’) before the High Court. The High Court by its order dated 30.05.2008 refused to interfere with the said order of the learned Trial Judge. Hence, the present appeals by special leave.

2. The relevant facts which will require enumeration can be summed up as follows.

On 16th of November, 2003 in the Delhi Edition of the Indian Express a news item under the caption “Caught on Tape : Union Minister Taking Cash saying money is no less than God” had appeared showing visuals of one Dalip Singh Ju Dev, (deceased first accused) (A-1), the then Union Minister of State for Environment and Forest, receiving illegal gratification from one Rahul alias Bhupinder Singh Patel (third accused) (A-3) in the presence of the Additional Private Secretary to the Minister one Natwar Rateria (second accused) (A-2). Immediately on publication of the abovesaid news item a preliminary enquiry was registered by the ACU-II of the Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi and on conclusion of the said preliminary enquiry FIR dated 19.12.2013 was filed alleging commission of offences under Section 12 of the PC Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B IPC by the present appellants (A-4 and A-6).

3. The aforesaid FIR was challenged in a proceeding before the Delhi High Court registered and numbered as Crl. Misc. Case No. 59/2004. It appears that there was no interim restraint on the investigation pursuant to the FIR filed. While the investigation was in progress, Crl. Misc. Case No. 59/2004 came to be dismissed by the Delhi High Court by order dated 10.11.2004. As against the said order dated 10.11.2004, SLP (Crl.) No. 6336 of 2004 was instituted by the 4th Accused as well as other accused before this Court. However, as on completion of investigation chargesheet had been filed on 5.12.2005, the aforesaid SLP was closed by order dated 23.11.2007 as having become infructuous.

4. From the chargesheet dated 05.12.2005 filed by the CBI before the competent court, the gravamen of the allegations against the accused-appellants appear to be that one Amit Jogi (accused No.5) (A-5) son of Ajit Jogi, who was then the Chief Minister of the State of Chhatisgarh, had hatched a conspiracy alongwith A-3 to A-6 to execute a sting operation showing receipt of bribe by the Union Minister of State for Environment and Forest (A-1) so as to discredit him on the eve of the elections to the State Assembly of Chhatisgarh and thereby bring political advantage to Shri Ajit Jogi who was a rival of the Union Minister. According to the prosecution, as per the conspiracy hatched, A-5 alongwith other co-conspirators had initially brought in one Manish Rachhoya (PW-23), a close friend of A-5, as a representative of a Calcutta based mining company which had pending work in the Ministry of Environment and Forest as one of the conspirators. A-5 had requested one Shekhar Singh (PW-22) to introduce the aforesaid Manish Rachhoya to A-1, which was agreed to. The said meeting was to be held in Hotel Taj Palace, New Delhi and to effectuate the said purpose A-6 had booked suite No. 151 in Hotel Taj Palace, New Delhi in the fictitious name of Manish Sarogi. According to the prosecution, Manish was introduced to Shekhar Singh. However, subsequently Manish developed cold feet and decided to disassociate himself from the































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top