2017 (8) TMI 388 - SC - Indian Laws

Proof of accused as committed an offence - commencement of raid - satisfaction of the court in relation to the existence of constituents of an offence and the facts leading to that offence is a sine qua non for exercise of such jurisdiction - Held that - We have no doubt to hold that in Call No. 48, the respondent herein was not at all in picture and even in Call No. 51 he was talking to Hemant Gandhi but it is not proved that they were talking about the same raid as they have used certain other cryptic codes as mentioned above which makes the Call highly improbable for connecting the respondent herein in commissioning of the offence. Even otherwise, in Call No. 51, the benefit of doubt must go to the respondent herein where the language of the call is dubious and no logical understanding of the actual conversation can be drawn. Further, in the absence of any details with regard to the amount of six zero , we are of the view that Call No. 48 categorically brings out that the respondent herein did not have any knowledge of the alleged criminal conspiracy and Call No. 51 is also unable to prove the complicity of the accused in the crime because of its out of the context conversation. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that Call Nos. 48 and 51, heavily relied upon by the prosecution, lack object and purpose to prove the complicity of the respondent herein in the crime. Thus vide Call Nos. 48 and 51, the prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of the respondent herein in the alleged raid. There is no material evidence on record in order to bring home the charge of conspiracy against the respondent. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence to prove that the respondent has demanded any illegal gratification and has accepted or obtained any such illegal gratification. Further, the premises that was alleged to be raided was neither a manufacturing unit nor packing or repacking activity was carried out there and hence no case of central excise could have been made out which could grant any jurisdiction to the respondent to do some favour or disfavor in the discharge of his official functions. The High Court was well within its powers while quashing the order framing charge as there was no material on record to connect the respondent with the offence in question. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by the CBI is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of framing charges against the respondent.
2. Evaluation of evidence, including intercepted conversations and witness statements.
3. Applicability of legal principles regarding conspiracy and illegal gratification.
4. Jurisdiction and power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Framing Charges Against the Respondent:
The core issue was whether the charges framed by the Special Judge (CBI-01), New Delhi against the respondent under Section 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 12, and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were legally sustainable. The High Court quashed these charges, and the Supreme Court had to determine if this quashing was justifiable.

2. Evaluation of Evidence:
The prosecution's case heavily relied on intercepted telephonic conversations, particularly Call Nos. 48 and 51, and statements under Section 164 of the Code.

Call No. 48:
The conversation between Hemant Gandhi and Mahender Kapoor indicated that the raid was successful and mentioned a deal of "six zeroes" (?60 lakhs). However, the Supreme Court noted that this call did not implicate the respondent directly, as it primarily involved Hemant Gandhi and Mahender Kapoor, with no mention of the respondent's involvement in negotiating or accepting the bribe.

Call No. 51:
This call between Hemant Gandhi and the respondent included the phrase "mission successful" and a cryptic mention of "six zeroes." The Supreme Court found that this conversation was ambiguous and lacked clear evidence of the respondent's involvement in the illegal raid or the demand for illegal gratification.

Witness Statements:
The statements under Section 164 of the Code did not implicate the respondent, as the witnesses retracted their statements, claiming they were made under duress. The Supreme Court emphasized that these retractions weakened the prosecution's case.

3. Applicability of Legal Principles:
The Supreme Court reiterated that for a charge of conspiracy, there must be an agreement to do an illegal act or to do a legal act by illegal means. The prosecution must prove this agreement either by direct or circumstantial evidence. The Court cited Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad vs. K. Narayana Rao (2012) 9 SCC 512, emphasizing that mere suspicion or surmises are insufficient to establish conspiracy.

Regarding illegal gratification, the Court referred to P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P. (2015) 10 SCC 152, stating that proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential. Mere possession or recovery of currency notes without proof of demand does not establish the offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act.

4. Jurisdiction and Power of the High Court:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code, which allows for quashing charges when there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The Court noted that such power should be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases. The High Court was found to have acted within its jurisdiction, given the lack of material evidence against the respondent.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to implicate the respondent in the alleged conspiracy and demand for illegal gratification. The intercepted calls and witness statements did not establish a prima facie case against the respondent. Consequently, the appeal filed by the CBI was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision to quash the charges against the respondent. The trial court was directed to proceed with the case against the other accused on its merits.