State through Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Anup Kumar Srivastava (Supreme Court of India)
The appeal arose from a challenge to the Delhi High Court’s order quashing charges framed against the respondent, who at the relevant time served as Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-I. The CBI had registered a case under IPC Section 120-B and various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act alleging that the respondent, along with other Excise officials and a private person, conspired to conduct an illegal raid and obtain illegal gratification. A charge sheet was filed asserting that a fake raid was carried out on 28.12.2011 by a team led by a Superintendent, and the respondent, acting through a private intermediary, negotiated a bribe of ₹60 lakhs with the owners of the raided premises. Intercepted calls were relied on to claim the respondent’s involvement.
Read Delhi HC Judgment: Corruption Charges Quashed Due to Insufficient Evidence of Conspiracy
The Special Judge framed charges on 08.11.2012. The respondent filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court, which quashed the charges. The State, through the CBI, appealed to the Supreme Court.
The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in quashing charges at the pre-trial stage. The CBI argued that courts must only assess prima facie material at the stage of framing charges and avoid conducting a mini-trial. It relied heavily on two intercepted calls—Call Nos. 48 and 51—asserting that phrases such as “mission successful” and “six zero” demonstrated the respondent’s involvement. It was argued that the respondent remained in continuous touch with the private intermediary and that quashing charges against him would adversely impact the trial against other accused.
The respondent countered that the High Court’s reasoning was proper under Section 482. It was submitted that witnesses had retracted statements under Section 164 CrPC, alleging they were given under threat. The respondent contended that there was no direct evidence of demand or acceptance of illegal gratification, and that the intercepted calls did not support the prosecution’s case.
The Court examined the prosecution’s allegations, including the purported illegal raid, the alleged bribe settlement, the use of a private intermediary, and the interception of 96 calls. Call No. 48, made after the raid, reflected a conversation between the private intermediary and a Superintendent. It suggested involvement of certain officers in fixing a ₹60-lakh deal but also showed the intermediary stating that the respondent should not be informed of these details. The Court held that this call did not implicate the respondent.
Call No. 51 involved the private intermediary speaking to the respondent and informing him that the “mission is successful.” The Court held that the phrases “mission successful” and “six zero” were ambiguous, lacked context, and could not be logically connected to the alleged illegal raid, especially since no raiding team member had informed the respondent of the raid. The call contained additional cryptic numerical references, rendering the meaning unclear. The Court found no basis to infer knowledge, demand, or acceptance of illegal gratification by the respondent.
Statements under Section 164 CrPC were found to be unreliable due to retraction by witnesses, who alleged coercion. The Court noted that though the private intermediary had regular contact with the respondent, this alone could not establish complicity, particularly because he was an informer for the evasion wing.
Discussing the law on framing charges, the Court reiterated that while courts must examine material to determine whether a prima facie case exists, they may discharge an accused when the material does not satisfy ingredients of the alleged offences. Conspiracy requires proof of agreement to commit an unlawful act; such proof cannot rest on suspicion alone. For offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act, proof of demand is indispensable; mere recovery or ambiguous communication cannot sustain charges.
The Court concluded that the prosecution’s key reliance on Call Nos. 48 and 51 was insufficient to establish involvement of the respondent in any conspiracy or illegal gratification. There was no direct or circumstantial evidence showing demand, acceptance, or obtaining of bribe, nor any material demonstrating that the respondent exercised official influence in connection with the alleged raid. The premises raided did not fall under any activity that could attract excise jurisdiction, weakening the alleged motive.
Finding no error in the High Court’s exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC, the Supreme Court held that quashing of the charges was justified. The appeal was dismissed, with the clarification that the trial against other accused could proceed independently.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
