Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
Bhupinder Singh Patel - Appellants
Vs.
CBI - Respondent
Crl. Revision Petition No. 584/2007
Decided On: 30.05.2008
CRIMINAL LAW - STING OPERATIONS - CRIMINAL CULPABILITY - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS - REVISION PETITION AGAINST ORDER FRAMING CHARGES - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 24 OF THE ACT - MEANING OF "PROCEEDINGS" - MOTIVE OF EXPOSING CORRUPTION - LEGALITY OF STING OPERATIONS - ROLE OF MEDIA - DISTINCTION BETWEEN ENTRAPMENT AND EXPOSING CORRUPTION - SCOPE OF SECTION 120A IPC - AGREEMENT TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE - INFERENCE OF CONSPIRACY FROM CIRCUMSTANCES - ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY - DISTINCTION BETWEEN ABETMENT AND CONSPIRACY - ROLE OF EACH ACCUSED IN THE CONSPIRACY - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 107 IPC - DISTINCTION BETWEEN MEANS READ AND INTENTION - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 120B IPC - PUNISHMENT FOR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY - SCOPE OF SECTION 24 OF THE ACT - PROTECTION TO BRIBE-GIVER - CONDITIONS FOR APPLICABILITY - ROLE OF POLICE AND INVESTIGATING AGENCIES - DUTY OF CITIZENS TO STRENGTHEN INSTITUTIONS - FREEDOM OF PRESS AND ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE CONSTITUTION - RESTRICTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 19(2) - ROLE OF MEDIA IN EXPOSING CORRUPTION - LEGALITY OF STING OPERATIONS - DISTINCTION BETWEEN SNARING PEOPLE INTO ACCEPTING BRIBES AND EXPOSING CORRUPTION - DUTY OF MEDIA TO ACT WITHIN THE LAW - SOCIAL LEGISLATION TO CURB CORRUPTION - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 24 OF THE ACT - STATEMENT BY BRIBE-GIVER NOT TO SUBJECT HIM TO PROSECUTION - SCOPE OF PROTECTION - CONTINUING OFFENCE OF CONSPIRACY - ROLE OF EACH CONSPIRATOR - EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY - INFERENCE OF MOTIVE FROM CIRCUMSTANCES - AGREEMENT TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE - MEANS READ ATTRIBUTABLE TO ACCUSED - BENEFIT TO ACCUSED FROM THE ACT - OBJECTIVE TO GIVE BRIBE AND SECRETLY RECORD THE SAME - AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN ACCUSED PERSONS - OVERT ACT WITH KNOWLEDGE OF CONSPIRACY - ROLE OF ACCUSED IN THE CONSPIRACY - DISTINCTION BETWEEN PW 23 AND ACCUSED NO. 6 - LEGALITY OF ORDER FRAMING CHARGES.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a sting operation conducted by accused No. 3, along with accused No. 4, to video record accused No. 1, a Union Minister of State for Environment & Forests, receiving illegal gratification from accused No. 2, his Additional Private Secretary. The incident was widely reported in print and visual media. After conducting a preliminary enquiry, the respondent registered a case against the accused persons. The accused No. 3 and 4 were charged under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (the said Act) r/w Section 120B of IPC for having conspired with one another with the motive to humiliate accused No. 1 and tarnish his image. The accused No. 5 and 6 were added as accused later. The accused No. 1 and 2 conceded to the framing of charges and did not advance any defense on their behalf. The Ld. Special Judge framed charges against the accused No. 3-6 u/s 12 of the said Act r/w Section 120B of IPC. The present revision petitions were directed against the aforesaid orders passed by the Ld. Special judge, CBI on framing of charges against the petitioners/accused Nos. 3-6.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the petitioners. The court held that the petitioners had entered into a criminal conspiracy to disgrace accused No. 1 and derive political mileage for accused No. 5's father, who was the Chief Minister of Chattisgarh at the time. The court also held that the petitioners had abetted each other in the commission of the offence of giving bribe to a public servant. The court further held that the petitioners were not entitled to protection under Section 24 of the said Act, which provides immunity to bribe-givers who make a statement in any "proceedings" against a public servant for an offence under the Act. The court held that the petitioners were not conducting any "proceedings" under the Code and that they had not approached any lawful authority to report the alleged corruption.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the petitioners? 2. Whether the petitioners had entered into a criminal conspiracy to disgrace accused No. 1 and derive political mileage for accused No. 5's father? 3. Whether the petitioners had abetted each other in the commission of the offence of giving bribe to a public servant? 4. Whether the petitioners were entitled to protection under Section 24 of the said Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the petitioners based on the following evidence: a. The video recording of the incident of receiving bribe by accused No. 1 from accused No. 3. b. The testimonies of witnesses, including accused No. 3, who admitted to paying the bribe. c. The documentary evidence, including the APFSL, Hyderabad report which proved the genuineness of the recordings of the incident. d. The call records of the petitioners, which showed their involvement in the conspiracy. 2. The court held that the petitioners had entered into a criminal conspiracy to disgrace accused No. 1 and derive political mileage for accused No. 5's father based on the following evidence: a. The fact that the petitioners had hatched the plan to video record accused No. 1 receiving bribe just before the assembly elections in Chattisgarh. b. The fact that accused No. 5 had enquired about the likely impact of the plan on the electoral prospects of the Congress Party. c. The fact that accused No. 5 had financed the entire conspiracy. 3. The court held that the petitioners had abetted each other in the commission of the offence of giving bribe to a public servant based on the following evidence: a. The fact that accused No. 3 had paid the bribe to accused No. 1 at the behest of accused No. 5. b. The fact that accused No. 4 had arranged for the video recording of the incident. c. The fact that accused No. 6 had booked the room in the hotel where the incident took place. 4. The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to protection under Section 24 of the said Act because they had not approached any lawful authority to report the alleged corruption.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petitions and upheld the order of the Ld. Special Judge framing charges against the petitioners.
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. The common thread that weaves through the present petitions is the aspect of criminal culpability of persons undertaking "sting" operations under the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The said revision petitions are filed against the order on framing charges.
2. On 05-11-2003, M/s. Dilip Singh Judeo (accused No. 1), the then Union Minister of State for Environment & Forests allegedly received illegal gratification in the sum of Rs. Nine lacs in the presence of his Additional Private Secretary (APS), Shri Natwar Rateria (accused No. 2) from one Shri Bhupinder Singh Patel @ Rahul (accused No. 3) as consideration for future favours with regard to certain mining projects in the states of Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and Orissa. The said incident had been secretly video recorded by accused No. 3 and one Shri Arvind Vijaymohan (accused No. 4) acquainted with accused No. 3 who arranged for the video recording equipment. This incident came to be widely reported and publicized in print and visual media.
3. After conducting a preliminary enquiry, the respondent registered a case against the said accused No. 1, accused No. 2, accused No. 3 and accused No. 4 on 19-12-2003. Further investigations conducted and statements of various witnesses recorded revealed that Shri Amit Jogi (accused No. 5) s/o Shri Ajit Jogi the then Chief Minister of Chattisgarh had allegedly hatched a plan with the said accused No. 3, accused No. 4 and one Shri Rajat Prasad (accused No. 6) to video record accused No. 1 in the act of receiving bribe with an intention to disgrace accused No. 1 and tarnish his image and derive political mileage just before the assembly polls of Chattisgarh which were scheduled to be held in the end of November, 2003. The respondent thereafter filed the charge sheet where the names of accused No. 5 and accused No. 6 were added.
4. In the meantime, accused no 3, along with one Shri Praveen Jain filed a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the said Code for short) in this Court for quashing of the FIR against them which was dismissed vide order dated 10-11-2004. In December 2004, a Special Leave Petition was filed assailing the aforesaid order which met the same fate and the Apex Court while disposing of the said SLP vide order dated 23-11-2007 observed that the petitions had become infructuous in view of the charges being already framed against the petitioners in the trial proceedings.
5. In the charge sheet, the respondent named two sets of accused. One comprising of accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 who were booked under Section 7 of the said Act r/w Section 120B of IPC for receiving the bribe amount from accused No. 3 which was secretly video recorded and the other set comprising of accused No. 3-6 charge sheeted under Section 12 of the said Act r/w Section 120B of IPC for having conspired with one another with the motive to humiliate accused No. 1 and taint his image.
6. During the trial before the Ld. Special Judge, accused No. 1 and 2 conceded to the framing of charges and did not advance any defense on their behalf. In so far as accused Nos. 3-6 are concerned, after the hearing of the arguments of the parties on charge, the court found against the said accused and framed charges against them u/s 12 of the said Act r/w Section 120B of IPC vide orders dated 24-04-2007 and 25-04-2007. The present revision petitions are directed against the aforesaid orders passed by the Ld. Special judge, CBI on framing of charges against the petitioners/accused Nos. 3-6.
7. The plea raised by the learned Counsel for accused No. 3 is that accused No. 3 being employed as a journalist in Akash Channel had access to the Chief Minister and thought of exposing corruption at highest level in order to make a name for himself in the field of investigation. Accused No. 3 was justified to use subterfuge, to obtain material, which could
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
