HC quashes bribery case CBI built solely on ‘colour of envelope’

Bengaluru: Holding that CBI had built its case solely on the colour of an envelope and the cash inside it, the high court quashed the proceedings against a senior petroleum ministry officer in a bribery case.
SM Mannan was booked by CBI in 2019 and a case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as IPC.
The crux of the case was that CBI’s deputy superintendent (anti-corruption branch) W Gladys Jayanthi directed Mannan to implement cancellation of the licence of an LPG storage unit in Ramanagara district.However, he complained to her higher-ups, saying she had illegally demanded the cancellation. He also explained why he couldn’t execute her direction.
The CBI officer directed the inspection of Sanghvi Cylinders Private Limited along with two others, including one belonging to M Santha Kumar.
During pendency of the investigation, the Union home ministry ordered the tapping of Mannan’s mobile. During the tapping, it was noticed that Kumar called Mannan and demanded Rs 50,0000, which was agreed to be paid on September 23, 2019.
CBI registered the case on September 22, 2019. The next day, Mannan was said to have accepted the money from Rishab Bipin Desai, sent by Kumar. CBI raided Mannan’s office and house and the Rs 50,000 kept in an envelope was recovered.
Challenging the proceedings against him, Mannan argued that the proceedings were vengefully initiated against him just because he had refused to succumb to pressure and harassment from Gladys Jayanth.
He claimed that tapping of his mobile phone was illegal and added there were no ingredients of “demand and acceptance” in the FIR to proceed against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. On the other hand, CBI claimed the bribe kept in an envelope was recovered from the petitioner’s house and it was identified by the co-accused who had delivered it. The agency added that the telephone conversation clearly indicated that the demand had been made by the petitioner.
However, Justice M Nagaprasanna pointed out that an act alleged under PC Act should have the ingredients of demand and acceptance and it was for the performance of a public duty or forbearance from performance.
“Therefore, demand and acceptance should be for the purpose of performance of some duty. For such performance, there should be work pending at the hands of the public servant,” the judge said.
“No trap was laid, no search was legally conducted, no permission to tap the mobile phone of the petitioner was legally granted. It runs completely counter to the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court. Therefore, if the prosecution wants to build up its case on the colour of a plain envelope, it is too bleak an effort to taint the petitioner and permit further proceedings,” Justice Nagaprasanna observed while allowing the petition.