The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Shiv Dutt Bakshi vs CBI consisting of Justice Yogesh Khanna opined that the absence of sanction cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings in the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”).
In the present case, the complaint was filed for accepting a bribe, however, the Bench found that it was not a case of bribe but of the sale of the Petitioner’s son’s private gun which could not be termed as illegal gratification. Hence, the closure report filed was upheld by the Court.
Brief Facts:
Samachar Plus broadcasted an alleged sting operation in 2016. Pt. Ayush Gaur (Deputy Director, Samachar Plus) allegedly used a customized i-Phone spy camera between March to May 2016 to expose how Dr. Karni Singh Shooting Range (KSSR) was flouting rules in exchange for cash and gifts to allow potential shooters to train. One such recording dated 15.05.2016 purportedly showed the Petitioner accepting Rs.1.00 Lakh in cash and a bottle of liquor from the reporter who posed as a teenage shooter wishing to use the shooting range facilities.
In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Pt. Ayush Gaur admitted that the Petitioner had never requested any payment for any reason before 15.05.2016 or at any time. According to the Prosecution, the producer modified the recording for the program.
The Sports Authority of India (SAI) started an internal probe based on the telecast and requested news channel footage on 18.07.2016. On 20.07.2016, SAI sent the two CDs to CFSL, Chandigarh. Thereafter, SAI filed a complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation against the Petitioner, alleging that a Hindi news channel called "Samachar Plus" conducted a sting operation called "Operation Arjun" in which the Petitioner was shown accepting a cash bribe. An FIR was launched against the Petitioner under Sections 7,13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
CFSL Chandigarh submitted its report admitting that the parcels including two DVDs were unsealed and unacceptable. Hence, they were alleged to be inadmissible as evidence. On 22.12.2017, the Respondent sealed one hard disk, which was initially sent to CFSL New Delhi and CFSL Chandigarh, but they refused to take it and said they needed the original device used in the sting operation. Thereafter, Ex.C1 hard disk was forwarded to CFSL, Hyderabad for an opinion, and after examining the hard disk it gave an opinion that the above hard disc appears to be a bad media and could not be identified/accessed. After conducting its investigation and examining the tainted material i.e., the alleged video footage and recording available, the Investigating Officer filed a Closure Report. Despite the closure report, the Petitioner was summoned.
Hence, the present petition for quashing the summoning order.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was contended that there was no sanction accorded by the competent authority to proceed against the Petitioner. There was absolutely no evidence against him as the primary and secondary evidence was distorted since the iPhone used for recording was run over by other recordings and at best was tainted evidence. It was further argued that the Petitioner had been exonerated in departmental enquiry, hence, cognizance cannot be taken.
Observations of the Court:
It was opined that the absence of sanction cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings in the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Further, it was held that the fact the CD could not provide a definite opinion as originals were destroyed and were unsealed, hence tampering could not be ruled out and thus the prosecution based on such lukewarm evidence would be nothing but an abuse of process.
The Bench referred to the statement of reporter Pt. Ayush Garg, recorded by the CBI, stated he was asked by the Editor–in–Chief to offer some gifts in kind or cash during the discussion with the Petitioner and he gave a bottle of liquor to the Petitioner on his own and there was no demand. Pt. Ayush Garg, the person who allegedly gave a cash bribe to the Petitioner himself admitted in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that the Petitioner had never demanded any amount from him nor there was any acceptance or recovery of any bribe amount from the Petitioner.
The High Court found that where the DVDs were sent in an unsealed condition; the video recordings were in continuity; the hard disk was declared to be a bad media; domestic enquiry too revealed it was not a case of bribe but of the sale of his son’s private gun which could not be termed as illegal gratification; the grounds mentioned in the closure report were all cogent and there was no reason to reject it
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned findings, the impugned order was set aside and the closure report filed by the CBI stood accepted. The petition was accordingly allowed.
Case Title: Shiv Dutt Bakshi vs CBI
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Yogesh Khanna
Case No: CRL.M.C. 1191/2021, CRL.M.A. 6085/2021
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Ms. Geeta Luthra, Mr. Nitin Saluja, Ms. Shivani Luthra Lohia, Ms. Kamakshi Gupta, Mr. Ankur Sinha, Mr. Manas Aggarwal, Ms. Poonam Dangi, Mr. Saahil Mongia
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mr. Nikhil Goel, SPP and Mr. Kartik Kaushal
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments