2014 (4) TMI 1206 - SC - Indian Laws

Offence under Section 120-B of the IPC read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - legality of a sting operation prompted by overwhelming public interest - murky deeds in seats of governmental power - Held that - sting operations conducted by the law enforcement agencies themselves in the above jurisdictions have not been recognized as absolute principles of crime detection and proof of criminal acts. Such operations by the enforcement agencies are yet to be experimented and tested in India and legal acceptance thereof by our legal system is yet to be answered. A crime does not stand obliterated or extinguished merely because its commission is claimed to be in public interest. Any such principle would be abhorrent to our criminal jurisprudence. At the same time the criminal intent behind the commission of the act which is alleged to have occasioned the crime will have to be established before the liability of the person charged with the commission of crime can be adjudged. The doctrine of mens rea, though a salient feature of the Indian criminal justice system, finds expression in different statutory provisions requiring proof of either intention or knowledge on the part of the accused. Such proof is to be gathered from the surrounding facts established by the evidence and materials before the Court and not by a process of probe of the mental state of the accused which the law does not contemplate. The offence of abetment defined by Section 107 of the IPC or the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120A of IPC would, thus, require criminal intent on the part of the offender like any other offence. A journalist or any other citizen who has no connection, even remotely, with the favour that is allegedly sought in exchange for the bribe offered, cannot be imputed with the necessary intent to commit the offence of abetment under Section 12 or that of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC. Non applicability of the aforesaid provisions of law in such situations, therefore, may be ex-facie apparent. The cause of journalism and its role and responsibility in spreading information and awareness will stand sub-served. It is only in cases where the question reasonably arises whether the sting operator had a stake in the favours that were allegedly sought in return for the bribe that the issue will require determination in the course of a full-fledged trial. The above is certainly not exhaustive of the situations where such further questions may arise requiring a deeper probe. As such situations are myriad, if not infinite, any attempt at illustration must be avoided. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Refusal to quash criminal charges under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. Legality and implications of sting operations.
3. Ingredients of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A IPC.
4. Criminal intent and mens rea in the context of sting operations.
5. Public interest and journalistic endeavors in sting operations.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Refusal to Quash Criminal Charges under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
The appellants challenged the Delhi High Court's refusal to quash criminal charges framed against them. The charges were under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court had framed charges against the appellants based on a sting operation that purportedly exposed a Union Minister receiving illegal gratification.

2. Legality and Implications of Sting Operations:
The judgment delves into the concept of sting operations, noting that they raise moral and ethical questions. The court observed that while sting operations are recognized in some jurisdictions like the USA and Canada, they are not legally sanctioned in India. The court discussed the potential for abuse in sting operations and the need for a legal framework to address such issues.

3. Ingredients of Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120-A IPC:
The court highlighted the essential elements of criminal conspiracy: (1) commonality of object, (2) a plan or scheme, and (3) an agreement or understanding between two or more persons. The appellants argued that their intent was to expose corruption, not to abet the commission of a crime. However, the court noted that the chargesheet suggested a conspiracy to disgrace the Union Minister and gain political mileage, which required further examination.

4. Criminal Intent and Mens Rea in the Context of Sting Operations:
The court emphasized the importance of criminal intent (mens rea) in determining liability. It stated that the intent behind the sting operation and the giving of bribe needed to be established through evidence. The court noted that whether the operation was a journalistic exercise or aimed at gaining political favors could only be determined after a full-fledged trial.

5. Public Interest and Journalistic Endeavors in Sting Operations:
The appellants contended that the sting operation was in public interest and aimed at exposing corruption. The court acknowledged the role of journalism in exposing illegal acts but stressed that the legality of the operation and the intent behind it needed to be scrutinized. The court noted that journalists or citizens with no stake in the favors sought in return for a bribe might not have the criminal intent required for abetment or conspiracy charges.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's order refusing to interfere with the charges framed against the appellants. The court held that prima facie materials were available for a fuller probe into the role of the appellants in the alleged conspiracy. The judgment underscores the need for a detailed examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding sting operations and the criminal intent behind them.