Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. A somewhat similar jurisprudence recognizing the defence of entrapment in sting operations has developed in Canada where the defence available under specified conditions, if established, may result in "stay" of judicial proceedings against the accused the effect of which in the said jurisdiction is a termination of the prosecution. [R v. Regan (2002) 1 SCR 297 (Can SC) (para2)].

15. In R vs. Mack (1988) 2 SCR 903 (Can SC), it has been explained by the Canadian Supreme Court that entrapment occurs when (a) the authorities provide a person with an opportunity to commit an offence without acting on a reasonable suspicion that this person is already engaged in criminal activity or pursuant to a bona fide inquiry, and, (b) although having such a reasonable suspicion or acting in the course of a bona fide inquiry, they go beyond providing an opportunity and induce the commission of an offence. The following factors determine whether the police have done more than provide an opportunity to commit a crime :

17. However, a shift in judicial reaction appears to be emerging which is clearly discernable in R v. Loosely (2001) 1 WLR 2060 wherein the House of Lords found that ( WLR pp. 2067-68, paras 16, 17:-

"16.........A prosecution founded on entrapment would be an abuse of the court's process. The court will not permit the prosecutorial arm of the state to behave in this way."

"17....... entrapment is not a matter going only to the blameworthiness or culpability of the defendant and, hence, to sentence as distinct from conviction. Entrapment goes to the propriety of there being a prosecution at all for the relevant offence, having regard to the State's involvement in the circumstance in which it was committed."

The Supreme Court noted that the recent trend is that a prosecution based on entrapment is considered abuse of the Courts' process. Although in our country, the law as it stands, does not recognise entrapment as a valid defence but there is no doubt regarding unequivocal legal position that the electronic material or other evidence relating to such operation should be of unimpeachable character, not that should be doubted, questioned or critisized. While considering the admissibility of the tape recorded statement, the Supreme Court in Ram Singh Vs. Col. Ram Singh6 laid down the following principles:-

The rational behind the aforesaid proposition laid down by the Supreme Court is not difficult to understand. There had been instances where sting operations were found to be tutored, based on half truths, to gain popularity and thus, help increase the TRP of the programme or to confer benefit to some other individual or body. One such instance was a sting operation conducted on Ms. Khurana, a teacher in a school run by Delhi Government. On 30 August 2007, a television news channel called 'Live India' aired a programme based on sting operation, wherein the teacher was shown forcing a girl student into prostitution. In the wake of the said telecast and the mayhem that followed some persons physically attacked the teacher and even tore her clothes. The Directorate of Education, Delhi came into action and suspended Ms. Khurana and later, dismissed her from service. In police investigation that followed, it transpired that there was no evidence to show that Ms. Khurana was involved in any prostitution racket. The girl, who has been shown as a student, was a journalist, eager to make a name in the media world. On 11 September 2007, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued a show cause notice to the T.V. Channel under Section 5 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 read with the provisions of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 stating that the sting operation was based on a false story containing half truths and levelling false innuendos. On 19 September 2007, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting passed an order imposing ban on transmission by the said channel. The Delhi High Court took suo motu cognizance of the media reportings and examined the issue how the re-occurrence of such incident could be stopped, so that innocent persons are not victimized. After examining the law on the subject prevailing in European countries and placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Keith Jacobson Vs. United States7 it was observed that where an individual is induced to break law and the accused person sets up the defence of entrapment, the prosecution must answer by establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was predisposed to committing such criminal act prior to his entrapment by the sting operation. It has been held that "while artifice and stratagem may be employed to catch those who are engaged in criminal enterprises, there would be a need to prove that the person in question had a predisposition to commit the said criminal act prior to being approached by the enforcement agencies". It has been observed as under:-