Important points:
The Court on a consideration of the relevant materials is satisfied that no offence is disclosed, it will be the duty of the Court to interfere with any investigation and to stop the same to prevent any kind of unnecessary harassment to an individual

ORDER :

The sting operation conducted by the reporter of a television channel forms the basis for the registration of the case against the petitioners as Crime No.V.C.1/2019 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Kasaragod Unit.

2. The petitioners are the third and the fourth accused in the case. At the time of the alleged incident, they were working as the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector and the Office Attendant respectively at the R.T.O check post at Cheruvathoor.

3. The sting operation was conducted on 10.06.2018 and 11.06.2018. It is stated that such an operation was conducted with a view to expose the corruption among government officials in taking bribe for permitting vehicles to transport sand without actually verifying whether the vehicles have valid permit and other documents to transport sand.

4. The reporter of the television channel, disguised as the cleaner, travelled in a lorry. It is alleged that he gave money to various officials of the Motor Vehicles Department, Police Department and the Excise Department on the way from Manjeswaram to Cheruvathoor. The scenes of paying the money were recorded by a hidden camera held by the cameraman who was travelling with him. The television channel broadcast the scenes with a report.

5. The Additional Director General of Police (Crimes) ordered to conduct a preliminary enquiry in the matter. On the basis of the report of the preliminary enquiry which was conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch CID, Kannur, sanction was granted by the Government to register a vigilance case and to conduct investigation. Accordingly, the case was registered against the petitioners and four other government officials as Crime No.V.C.1/2019 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Kasaragod Unit under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

6. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for quashing the first information report registered (Annexure-A1) against the petitioners.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following contentions: (1) No search was conducted and no money was recovered. Therefore, the offences alleged against the petitioners will not stand against them. (2) The persons, who are seen in the video seized, could not be identified as it was recorded during night. Registration of the first information report on the basis of the video is not legally sustainable. Such a video cannot be the sole basis for the prosecution against the petitioners. (3) The video seized is not admissible in evidence.

9. I find no merit in any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. None of them constitutes sufficient ground for quashing the first information report. The case was registered against the petitioners and others not merely on the basis of the video clipping seized from the television channel or the reporter. A preliminary enquiry was conducted and it was revealed that there were sufficient materials disclosing commission of cognizable offences. The statement filed by the investigating officer reveals that the video has been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The authenticity and reliability of the video clipping are yet to be ascertained. Admissibility of it in evidence is not a matter to be decided now. It is not a trap case. Seizure of the money has no significance in the case. It is possible to collect other evidence during the investigation of the case. The statement of the reporter, who has given the money, has been recorded. Whether his statement could be accepted as reliable or not is a matter which does not arise for consideration at this stage. The question whether any demand for money was made or not by the petitioners is a matter for investigation.

10. Registration of the first information re