Whether it is permissible lay trap in court premises without previous permission of District Judge or High court?

There is one more aspect of the matter, which is of
considerable importance.  In this case, the trap was laid and the
raid was effected in the court premises itself.   It was arranged
during the working hours of court.  No permission appears to have
been obtained from the High court or the Judge in­charge of the
Judicial Administration of the District, before laying such a trap.
If the investigating agencies are permitted to lay traps in the court
premises, on working days and during the working hours, it would
not   be   conducive   to   the   administration   of   justice.     The   staff
attached to a Judge discharges duties under the instructions of the
Presiding Officer. If the Police Officers, whose subordination to the
Judicial Magistrate is evident from the provisions of the Code of
Criminal   Procedure,   and   who   frequently   visit   the   courts   for
obtaining remand or as witnesses, are allowed to raid the court
premises without permission of the Presiding Officer of the court
or the Principal District Judge, or the High court, there is every
possibility of a serious threat to the administration of justice and
the independence of judiciary, being posed.   A similar view was

taken by the Allahabad High Court in Surendra Sahai and Others
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1997 Cri.L.J.1670. In my
opinion, therefore, it was absolutely improper on the part of the
investigating   agency   to   have   laid   a   trap   without   seeking   the
previous   permission   of   the   Judge   in­charge   of   the   Judicial
Administration   of   the   District   or   the   High   court   and   without
seeking permission to lay such a trap. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.162 OF 2000
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
V/s.
ANNASAHEB MAHADEV BHANDARE 

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
DATE : 27th JULY 2015.
Citation: 2017 ALLMR(CRI) 1505

Print Page

Whether bad character of complainant will entitle accused to get acquittal?

In appreciating evidence in trap cases, the character of
the   complainant   assumes   importance.     The   judicial
pronouncements have recognized that there are various types of
complainants.  There are some complainants who basically want
some favour from a public servant illegally and because of the
refusal of the public servant to oblige him, decide to lodge a
complaint against him.   There are other types of complainants
whose genuine and legitimate work is unnecessarily held up by a
public  servant with the object  of  obtaining illegal gratification
from   such   complainants.     In   this   case,   the   complainant,
admittedly, being a person who had acted contrary to law and
who faced the danger of inviting action by the local authorities

against the unauthorized construction work carried out by him,

his evidence needs to be scrutinized with due care.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1152 OF 2004
RAVINDRA MAHADEO KOTHAMKAR )...APPELLANT
V/s.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA  )...RESPONDENT

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
DATE : 9th OCTOBER 2015.
Citation; 2015(4) Crimes 222 Bombay

Print Page

Whether trap under prevention of corruption Act can be organized in court premises without permission of principal Judge?

 In my opinion,  traps in the premises of the Court on
working days, cannot be organized without the permission of the
Judge who is in­charge of the administration of such Court, or the
Principal District Judge, or the High Court. The working of the
courts of law is distinguishable from the offices of the government
departments.  In the court premises, there is presence of advocates
and advocates' clerks, who, quite often – lawfully and for lawful
purposes – receive amounts in cash from the litigants or their
representatives.  No receipts regarding such amounts are passed –
atleast not at that time.  The members of the staff of the court, are
quite often required to assist the litigants or the advocates, and to
provide answers to their queries.   Implicating a member of the
court staff falsely, with respect to the accusation of his having
demanded   and/or   accepted   illegal   gratification   is   easier   than
implicating public servants working in other departments.    If the
police are permitted to lay traps without such permission, it can
indeed pose a serious threat to the administration of justice and
independence of judiciary.  On the contrary, no harm can possibly
be suffered by seeking the permission of the concerned Judge or
his superior, or the High Court.   The impermissibility of laying
such   traps   was   considered   by   the   Allahabad   High   Court   in

Surendra Sahai and Ors. Vs. State of U.P8
    and it was held that
such traps ought not to be  organised.   In my opinion, it was
absolutely improper in this case on the part of the Investigating
Agency to have laid a trap without seeking a previous permission
of the Hon'ble The Chief Justice.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1069 OF 2013
SHRIDHAR CHAVAN V THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
­­­

­­­
      CORAM :  ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
              
  Dated : 13th OCTOBER 2015
Citation;2015 (4) Crimes 227 Bom
­­­

Print Page

Whether court should convict accused under Prevention of Corruption Act if he slipped at the time of the trap without intimation to anyone?

The learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly gave emphasis to this aspect of the prosecution version that at the crucial time, when the trap was laid and the accused was about to be apprehended, he slipped away from the office of the SDM without any intimation to anyone. Therefore, neither the accused was apprehended nor the tainted money could be recovered. Now, the accused cannot be permitted to take any benefit of the circumstance by which he evaded his arrest from the spot. Apart from that this is one of those unusual cases, where the SDM himself has been examined and he has fully supported the prosecution version. The independent panch witnesses have also corroborated the prosecution version. The prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond any shadow of doubt. The conviction is accordingly upheld.

Delhi High Court

Teka Ram vs The State on 1 March, 1998

Equivalent citations: 1998 IIIAD Delhi 41, 1998 CriLJ 3022, 72 (1998) DLT 581

Print Page