Court’s Decision:
The Karnataka High Court, in a judgment dated 2 June 2025, dismissed the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking to quash FIR No. 03/2024 registered under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court held that the foundational facts, including demand and acceptance of bribe by a public servant, were sufficiently made out to continue the investigation and rejected the contention that it was a failed trap.
The Court categorically stated:
“This is not a case of a failed trap. Prima facie, it is not a case where there is absence of demand and acceptance.”
Facts:
The petitioner was working as an Assistant Engineer with BESCOM and was alleged to have demanded a bribe for ensuring electricity supply to buildings. A complaint was lodged by a work inspector who had submitted two applications on behalf of builders for power supply. It was alleged that the petitioner referred the complainant to a private contractor (Accused No.2), who initially demanded ₹5,00,000 which was later negotiated to ₹3,80,000 during a meeting at Vaishnavi Palace Hotel. The trap was laid by the Lokayukta police and ₹3,80,000 was recovered from a plastic cover in the rear seat of the petitioner’s vehicle.
Issues:
- Whether a prima facie case for demand and acceptance under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out?
- Whether the FIR registered in Crime No. 3/2024 should be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner contended that there was no proof of either demand or acceptance of bribe. He merely provided the complainant with contact details of Accused No.2, the contractor, and had no role in any subsequent negotiations. It was asserted that:
- No money was recovered from the petitioner’s person.
- No hand-wash test was conducted.
- The currency notes were recovered from the back seat of the vehicle and not from his possession.
- The complainant was a habitual informer with multiple complaints filed against BESCOM officers.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The Special Public Prosecutor argued that:
- There was sufficient evidence of demand and acceptance.
- The amount was recovered from a vehicle in which the petitioner was present.
- The pre-trap and trap mahazars recorded the sequence of events.
- The complainant’s history of filing complaints did not invalidate the present trap or investigation.
- Whether the sodium bicarbonate wash was conducted or not is a matter for trial.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court elaborated upon the legal framework of Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, both before and after the 2018 amendment. It noted that the core ingredients are:
- Demand for illegal gratification.
- Acceptance of undue advantage.
It was reiterated that recovery alone is insufficient unless coupled with proof of demand and acceptance. The Court also analysed the concept of “offer and acceptance” in bribe cases as interpreted by the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCT of Delhi) and the most recent judgment in Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi).
Precedent Analysis:
- B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh: Held that mere recovery is insufficient without proof of demand and voluntary acceptance.
- N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu: Reiterated that demand and acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCT of Delhi): Constitution Bench held that demand and acceptance are sine qua non and can be proved by circumstantial evidence.
- Soundararajan v. State: Reinforced that proof of demand and acceptance is necessary for invocation of presumption under Section 20.
- Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi): Clarified the difference between mere receipt and legal proof of demand in context of “gratification” and “undue advantage”.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court noted that:
- The FIR was based on a detailed complaint with specific dates, meetings, and recordings.
- The trap proceedings were corroborated by recovery of ₹3,80,000 from a car in which the petitioner was seated.
- The petitioner’s involvement in the demand was not disproved; rather, the materials prima facie indicated his complicity.
It held:
“Prima facie, the facts obtain in the case at hand demonstrate that the amount of ₹3,80,000/- was directed to be received from the complainant by the petitioner himself.”
The Court concluded that this was not a case where investigation should be scuttled at the threshold under Article 226.
Conclusion:
The High Court refused to interfere at the FIR stage and held that a full-fledged investigation was warranted. Accordingly, the petition to quash the FIR was dismissed. The petitioner’s liberty was protected by directing that no coercive steps be taken for 10 days.
Implications:
This judgment reinforces the principle that at the stage of investigation, courts should not enter into a roving inquiry or appreciation of disputed facts. The Court’s refusal to quash FIRs on speculative defences strengthens the hands of anti-corruption agencies like the Lokayukta and ensures a more robust prosecution of public bribery cases.
