The High Court of Calcutta has recently given verdict over 'sting operation' conducted by Journalists in general public interest.

The division bench in its judgement has held that indulgence in 'sting operation' purportedly in public interest doesn't extinguish the criminal liability of an individual.

The Court while placing its reliance on Rajat Prasad v. CBI, (2014) 6 SCC 495 stated:

"Indulging in 'sting operation' purportedly in public interest doesn't immunize an individual from criminal liability, more so, when materials collected in the course of the investigation show the activities of the petitioners do not appear to be so altruistic as contended but portends of blackmail and extortion."

The observation came out while the Court was dealing with a case for impersonation, forgery and cheating in which it rejected the anticipatory bail application with the above observations. 

CASE DETAILS

The allegation made against the petitioners-accused was that they impersonated themselves as businessmen to enter into a commercial transaction with the complainant and to exploit his political connections. It was further alleged that a deep-rooted conspiracy had been engineered to extort politicians by luring them with women and money.

In the submission made on behalf of the petitioners, it was contended before the Court that they were only conducting bona fide sting operation to unravel corruption. The contention was duly rejected. 

The Court noted that the matter involved "much more serious offence" than what was portrayed in the FIR. It so held that Police is at liberty to add graver offences if revealed, during the course of an investigation.

It stated:

"When an ongoing investigation gives rise to graver offences it is open to the investigating agency to add such graver offences at the appropriate stage of the proceeding. However, in the light of sufficient incriminating materials on record disclosing such offences, we are not inclined to restrict our attention only to the allegations in the F.I.R. which needless to mention is merely the tip of a much bigger crime."

The judgement was delivered by Justice Suvra Ghosh and Justice Joymalya Bagchi on 24-01-2020.

Picture Source :