IMPORTANT POINTS
If the evidence does not satisfy ingredients of criminal offence or the case is of civil nature, court should discharge the accused.
For sustaining charge of conspiracy, knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means necessary. It is not necessary to prove that each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do.
What constitutes illegal gratification is a question of law; and whether on the evidence that crime has been committed is a question of fact. If demand and acceptance of a bribe is not proved, the charge cannot be said to have been established.

JUDGMENT

R.K. Agrawal, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2013 passed by learned single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. M.C. No. 4360 of 2012 whereby the High Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein against the order dated 08.11.2012 passed by the Special Judge (CBI-01), New Delhi in C.C. No. 02/2012 wherein charges have been framed against the respondent herein.

3. Brief facts:

(a) At the relevant time, Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava-respondent herein was posted as the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-1 Commissionerate. On 02.01.2012, on the basis of source information, a case under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC') read with Sections 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short `the PC Act') was registered by the CBI, AC-1, New Delhi being RCAC 2012 A0001 against the respondent herein along with other officials of the Central Excise Department, Delhi for obtaining illegal gratification by corrupt and illegal means owing to their alleged role in a raid in Delhi.

(b) The chargesheet dated 29.02.2012 was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi for framing of charges wherein it was alleged that on 28.12.2011, a team of officials of Central Excise, Delhi-I, lead by Lallan Ojha, Superintendent, conducted an illegal raid at the premises of Dilip Aggarwal and Anand Aggarwal at Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. It was further alleged in the chargesheet that the respondent herein through one Hemant Gandhi (private person) negotiated with the owners of the premises for illegal gratification in lieu of not taking any action against them and finalized the bribe amount of Rs. 60 lakhs to be paid to the above named private person. The private person was in regular touch with the owners of the premises and received Rs. 20 lakhs in cash along with a cheque of Rs. 20 lakhs as security for the remaining amount from them. Further, the private person was in regular touch with the officials of the Excise Department as well and he actually negotiated with them including the respondent herein for some concession in the amount on behest of the owners. In the whole process, the private person worked as a middleman and conveyed the illegal gratification fixed to the respondent herein.

(c) The investigation further revealed that as per the intercepted conversation received from Special Unit, CBI, Delhi, the respondent herein was in regular contact with Hemant Gandhi through telephone and also through personal meetings who used to organize illegal searches under the directions and protection of the respondent herein through other officials of the Department.

(d) On 08.11.2012, an order was passed by the Court of Special Judge, (CBI-01), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in C.C. No. 02/2012 wherein the respondent herein was charged with Section 120-B of the IPC and Sections 7, 12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

(e) Aggrieved by the order framing charge dated 08/17.11.2012, the respondent herein preferred Crl. M.C.(M) No. 4360 of 2012 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `the Code'). Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2013, quashed the order dated 08/17.11.2012 qua the respondent herein.

(f) Aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2013, the appellant-State through CBI has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

4. Heard Mr. P.K. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant-State and Mr. Joy Basu, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

Point for consideration:

5. The only point for consideration before this Court is whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant-State has made out a case for setting aside the order passed by the High Court?

Rival conte