Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR and final report under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, against the petitioner, a Village Assistant, accused of demanding and accepting a bribe for facilitating land measurement under a government housing scheme. The Court held that demand for bribe itself constitutes a cognizable offence justifying registration of an FIR before conducting trap proceedings, rejecting the petitioner’s challenge to the FIR on the ground that it was registered before the alleged acceptance of the bribe.
Facts
A complainant approached the Vigilance Department on 12 February 2024, alleging that the Village Assistant demanded a bribe of Rs. 500 for facilitating land measurement under the Fisheries Department’s Punargeham housing project. The demand was allegedly made on 8 February 2024 during a site visit for measurement. Following a pre-verification report confirming the allegation, the Vigilance registered an FIR at 9:30 AM on 12 February 2024 and proceeded with a trap. The accused allegedly accepted the tainted money at 4:05 PM on the same day, leading to his apprehension and recovery of the marked currency.
The petitioner sought to quash the FIR and final report, claiming the FIR was illegal as it was registered before the alleged crime of bribe acceptance had occurred, reflecting mala fide intentions by the vigilance officials.
Issues
- Whether the registration of the FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act before the actual trap and acceptance of bribe renders the proceedings illegal.
- Whether the anomaly in timing recorded in the mahazar and final report regarding the acceptance of the bribe invalidates the proceedings.
- Whether the demand for a bribe constitutes an offence justifying FIR registration prior to trap proceedings under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the registration of the FIR before the actual acceptance of the bribe invalidated the proceedings and indicated mala fide intent by the Vigilance to falsely implicate him. It was contended that the recorded time of acceptance in the mahazar (3:45 PM) differed from the final report (4:05 PM), creating procedural discrepancies that warranted quashing the proceedings. The petitioner’s counsel cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab (2025) to argue that procedural irregularities and registration of the FIR without establishing the commission of the offence rendered the proceedings illegal.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that the demand for a bribe itself constitutes an offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, justifying FIR registration prior to the trap. It was submitted that the FIR was based on the complainant’s report of demand made on 8 February 2024, and the subsequent acceptance of the bribe during the trap was part of the ongoing investigation. The prosecution contended that the timing anomaly between the mahazar and the final report was minor and could be clarified during the trial, which was not a ground for quashing the proceedings.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed:
- Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, which criminalises not only the acceptance of a bribe but also the demand or solicitation.
- The legal principles from Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab confirming that “attempt to obtain a bribe” constitutes an offence under the Act, with actual exchange not being essential for establishing the offence.
- The procedural framework under which the Vigilance is entitled to register an FIR upon receiving a complaint regarding the demand for a bribe, followed by pre-verification before executing trap proceedings.
The Court clarified that under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the demand for a bribe is itself a cognizable offence justifying the registration of an FIR prior to the execution of the trap, distinguishing the procedure from ordinary criminal law where an FIR typically follows the commission of the offence.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on:
- Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab (2025), which held that demand or solicitation of a bribe constitutes an offence under Section 7, and actual acceptance is not mandatory for establishing the offence.
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), clarifying the limited grounds under which FIRs can be quashed using inherent powers.
These cases reinforced the legality of registering an FIR upon confirmation of demand for a bribe, even if acceptance had not yet occurred, within the Prevention of Corruption Act framework.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that:
- The complainant reported the bribe demand on 12 February 2024, following the initial demand made on 8 February 2024.
- A pre-verification was conducted before registering the FIR, ensuring the procedural requirement of verifying the allegation before proceeding.
- The registration of the FIR at 9:30 AM on 12 February 2024, prior to the trap and acceptance of the bribe later that day, was legally valid under the Prevention of Corruption Act as demand itself is an offence.
- The timing anomaly in the mahazar and the final report (a 20-minute difference) was minor and not sufficient to quash the proceedings, as it could be addressed during the trial.
The Court held that the challenge to the FIR’s validity was unfounded and did not merit interference.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court:
- Dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR and final report.
- Upheld the validity of the FIR registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act before the actual trap, holding that demand for a bribe itself justifies FIR registration.
- Granted the petitioner liberty to raise all factual contentions during the trial.
Implications
This judgment clarifies:
- Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, demand for a bribe is sufficient to justify the registration of an FIR before trap proceedings.
- Minor procedural discrepancies like timing differences in trap reports are not grounds for quashing proceedings and can be addressed during trial.
- Reinforces the state’s anti-corruption machinery to act promptly upon complaints of bribe demands, strengthening vigilance operations.
Short Notes on Referred Cases
- Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab (2025): Held that demand or solicitation for a bribe constitutes an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, even without actual acceptance.
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992): Laid down limited categories for quashing FIRs under inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law.
FAQs
1. Can the FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act be registered before the trap and acceptance of the bribe?
Yes, since demand for a bribe itself constitutes an offence under Section 7, registration of an FIR before the trap is legally valid.
2. Is actual acceptance of the bribe necessary for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act?
No, mere demand or solicitation of a bribe is sufficient for prosecution under Section 7.
3. Can discrepancies in the timing recorded in trap reports lead to quashing of the proceedings?
No, minor discrepancies in timing are not grounds for quashing and can be addressed during trial.
