2015 Supreme(Raj) 2029

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.
Subhash Chandra Singh - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4767 of 2015.
Decided On : 3-12-2015

At the stage of framing of charge, only prima facie evidence is required to be seen to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to frame a charge for an offence. Even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of an offence by the accused, a charge can be ordered to be framed against him. At this stage, it cannot be determined whether the evidence collected during the investigation would ultimately result in the conviction of the accused.

Headnote:

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - CHARGE FRAMING - DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE - SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - CONFESSION BY CO-ACCUSED - RELEVANCE AND ADMISSIBILITY - LEGALITY OF SECOND TRAP - USE OF RECOVERED BRIBE MONEY FOR SECOND TRAP - ADMISSIBILITY OF TELEPHONIC CONVERSATIONS - CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 65-B OF EVIDENCE ACT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Additional Chief Engineer (Electric), BSNL, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 80,000 from the complainant for awarding three annual maintenance contracts. The complainant had already paid Rs. 40,000 through a co-accused, Executive Engineer (Electric), BSNL. A trap was laid, and the co-accused was caught red-handed while accepting the remaining Rs. 40,000. The co-accused admitted that he had demanded and accepted the bribe on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner was also caught red-handed while accepting the bribe money from the co-accused.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was sufficient evidence on record to frame charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 120-B IPC and Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court held that the conversations between the complainant and the co-accused, and between the co-accused and the petitioner, prima facie showed that the bribe was demanded by the petitioner through the co-accused. The court also held that the conduct of the co-accused and the petitioner after they were caught red-handed was relevant to show the petitioner's involvement in the incident. The court further held that the statements of material prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, also showed the petitioner's involvement.

Issues: 1. Whether there was sufficient evidence on record to frame charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 120-B IPC and Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 2. Whether the conversations between the complainant and the co-accused, and between the co-accused and the petitioner, were admissible in evidence? 3. Whether the co-accused's confession was admissible in evidence against the petitioner? 4. Whether the use of the recovered bribe money for a second trap was legal? 5. Whether the telephonic conversations were admissible in evidence without a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. At the stage of framing of charge, only prima facie evidence is required to be seen to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to frame a charge for an offence. Even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of an offence by the accused, a charge can be ordered to be framed against him. At this stage, it cannot be determined whether the evidence collected during the investigation would ultimately result in the conviction of the accused. 2. The conversations between the complainant and the co-accused, and between the co-accused and the petitioner, were admissible in evidence under Section 8 of the Evidence Act as they were relevant to show the petitioner's involvement in the incident. 3. The co-accused's confession was admissible in evidence against the petitioner under Section 8 of the Evidence Act as it was made immediately after he was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe. 4. The use of the recovered bribe money for a second trap was not illegal as the CBI officers had no other option to conduct the trap proceedings in respect of the petitioner. 5. The telephonic conversations were admissible in evidence even without a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act as they were not intercepted under the Telegraph Act.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's criminal misc. petition and the stay application.