LexRAJAT PRASAD versus C.B.I
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
..
[2014) 8 S.C.R. 636
RAJAT PRASAD
V.
C.B.L
{Criminal Appeal No. 747 of 2010)
APRIL 24, 2014
{P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND
· N.V. RAMANA, JJ.]
Prevention of Coffuption Act, 1988 -
s~ 12 - Penal Code,
C
1860 - s. 1208 - Conspiracy to execute sting operation
involving the giving of bribe to a Union Minister in retum for
certain favours so as to discredit him on the eve of State
Assembly elections and thereby bring political advantage to
. a rival of the Union Minister - Criminal charges against
D
appellants - Quash;ng of - Refusal by High Court - Propriety
- Held: Whether commission of offence uls.12 of the PC Act
rlw s. 1208 /PC hacl been occasioned by acts attributed to the
appellants or not, ideally, is a matter that can be determined '
on/9 after evidence in the case is recorded - Whether the
E
operation was really a journalistic exercise and giving of bribe
to A-1. was a mere sham or pretence or whether giving of the
bribe was with expectation of favours in connection with mining
projects, are questions that can only be answered by the
evidence of the parties which is yet to come - Such facts
F
cannot be a. matter of an assumption - Why in the present
case thety was a long gap (nearly 12 days) between the sting
operation and the . circulation thereof to the public is another
relevant iacet of the case that would require examination .-
1 nherent possibilities. of abuse of the operqtion as
G videographed, namely, retention and use thereof to ensure
delivery of the favours assured by the receiver of the bribe
has to be excluded before liability can be attributed or
excluded - This can happen only after the evidence of
witnesses is recorded - Also, merely because in the charge-
. H
636
RAJAT PRASAD v. C.B.I.
637
sheet it is stated that the accused had undertaken the A
operation to gain political mileage cannot undermine the
importance of proof of the aforesaid facts to draw permissible
conclusions on basis thereof as regards the criminal intent
of the accused in the present case - Prima facie materials
available for fuller probe into the precise role of appellants in · B
the alleged conspiracy - Order of the High Court refusing to
interfere with the charges framed against the accused- .
appellants therefore fully justified.
Criminal Law - Crime detection - Proof of criminal acts
- Sting operation - ff recognized as a legal method of law C
enforcement - Position in India and in certain foreign
jurisdictions discussed.
The appellants (A-6 and A-4) were accused in a
complaint case in the Court of the Special Judge, CBI, D
Delhi. The gravamen of the allegations against the
·accused-appellants was that one ·Amit Jogi (A-5) son of
Ajit Jogi, who was then the Chief Minister of the State of
Chhatisgarh, had hatched a conspiracy alongwith A-3 to
A-6 to execute a sting operation showing receipt of bribe E
by the Union Minister of State for Environment and
Forest (A-1) so· as to discredit him on the eve of the
elections to the St~te Assembly of Chhatisgarh and
thereby bring political advantage to Ajit Jogi who wa~ a
· rival of the Union Minister. Currency notes amounting to F
: Rs. 9 lakhs were handed over by A-3 to A-1 who accepted
. the same and carried the same out of the hotel in a
· laundry bag offered by A-3. The video recording of the
entire incident along with audio recording of the
conversations exchanged was secretly done and the G
· same was subsequently released to the media.
The prosecution alleged commission of the offence
under Section 7 of the of the. Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 against A-1 and offences under Section 120-B IPC
·H
•
638
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 8 S.C.R.
A
read with Section 7 of the Act against A-2. Insofar as the'
other accused including the accused-appellants are
concerned, according to the prosecution, they had
committed offences punishable under Section 12 of the ·
Act read with Section 120-B of the IPC.
B
The appellants assailed the order passed by the Trial
Court framing charges against them under Section 120·
B of the IPC read with Section 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 before the High Court. The High
Court refused to interfere with the order of the Trial Judge.
C The refusal of the High Court to exercise its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the
criminal charges framed against the accused-appellants
was challenged in the present appealExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.