Public interest in sting operations does not negate potential criminal liability for bribery or conspiracy; intent must be established during trial.

1. The refusal of the Delhi High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under S.482 CrPC 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 A6 and A4) 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 S.120B of the IPC read with S.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) (A1), the then Union Minister of State for Environment and Forest, receiving illegal gratification from one Rahul alias Bhupinder Singh Patel (third accused) (A3) in the presence of the Additional Private Secretary to the Minister one Natwar Rateria (second accused) (A2). 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 S.12 of the PC Act, 1988 read with S.120B IPC by the present appellants (A4 and A6).

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 charge - sheet had been filed on 05/12/2005, the aforesaid SLP was closed by order dated 23/11/2007 as having become infructuous.

4. From the charge - sheet 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) (A5) son of Ajit Jogi, who was then the Chief Minister of the State of Chhatisgarh, had hatched a conspiracy alongwith A3 to A6 to execute a sting operation showing receipt of bribe by the Union Minister of State for Environment and Forest (A1) 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, A5 alongwith other co - conspirators had initially brought in one Manish Rachhoya (PW 23), a close friend of A5, 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. A5 had requested one Shekhar Singh (PW 22) to introduce the aforesaid Manish Rachhoya to A1, which was agreed to. The said meeting was to be held in Hotel Taj Palace, N