Clarifying “Demand-and-Acceptance”: Karnataka High Court narrows Section 7 P.C. Act liability for unwitting intermediaries
1. Introduction
In Murali Krishna R v. State of Karnataka (Karnataka High Court, 30 July 2025) Justice
M. Nagaprasanna considered whether a contract driver, who merely carried a bag containing alleged bribe money on the
instruction of his superior, could be prosecuted for the offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”). Invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the Court quashed the FIR against the driver, emphasising that:
- Proof of both “demand and conscious acceptance” is a sine qua non for liability under
Section 7.
- Explanation 2 to Section 7 (third-party acceptance) cannot be stretched to ensnare an innocent intermediary who
lacks knowledge or intent.
The ruling protects subordinate or peripheral personnel from vicarious criminality where their involvement is
purely mechanical and devoid of mens rea, thereby refining the contours of anti-corruption prosecutions in
Karnataka and potentially beyond.
2. Summary of the Judgment
The petitioner, a 38-year-old contract driver engaged only 40 days earlier by BESCOM, was arrested during a
Lokayukta “trap” wherein ₹7.5 lakh allegedly demanded by BESCOM’s Chief General Manager (Accused No. 1) was placed
in the boot of the official vehicle by the driver (Accused No. 2). The complaint, pre-trap preparation, and audio
recordings all documented demand and acceptance by Accused No. 1 alone; no allegation of demand, negotiation or
knowledge against the driver surfaced. Relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence that demand and conscious acceptance
must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court held the proceedings against the driver to be an abuse of
process and quashed Crime No. 53/2023 as against him, leaving the case to continue only against the prime accused.
3. Detailed Analysis
3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence
- MADAN LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2025) 4 SCC 624
– Reaffirmed that absence of proven demand & acceptance defeats Section 7 prosecution; High Court applied
this to conclude there was “neither demand nor acceptance” by the driver.
- NEERAJ DUTTA v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731
– Constitution Bench clarified that presumption under Section 20 arises only after demand and
acceptance are established as foundational facts; the Court used this to reject any presumption against an
intermediary when foundational facts were missing.
- Soundarajan v. State 2023 SCC OnLine SC 424
– Restated that demand is sine qua non and must relate to “gratification”, not mere receipt of money; guided
the Court’s view that handling a bag mechanically is not gratification.
- Earlier trilogy – B. Jayaraj (2014), P. Satyanarayana Murthy (2015),
M. Narsinga Rao (2001) – emphasised identical twin-test; cited indirectly through
NEERAJ DUTTA.
3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning
- Factual Matrix Scrutiny
- Complaint, audio files, trap & pre-trap panchanamas: no reference to any demand by the driver.
- Recorded dialogue shows accused No. 1 negotiating and taking money; driver’s only words: “No need to
count”; states his name.
- Employment records: driver joined on 17-10-2023, trap on 23-11-2023 – indicating lack of proximity to
decision-making.
- Statutory Construction of Section 7 & Explanation 2
- The statute criminalises obtaining/accepting undue advantage with intention to perform
duties improperly; intention missing in petitioner’s case.
- Explanation 2 extends liability to third-party receivers only when they act “by abusing position
… or by personal influence”; driver had no such position/influence.
- Application of Supreme Court Tests
- Using Madan Lal & NEERAJ DUTTA, Justice
Nagaprasanna held that both pillars – demand and conscious acceptance – collapsed as far as the driver
was concerned.
- Without these pillars, Section 20 presumption cannot spring into life.
- Section 482 CrPC – Preventing Abuse of Process
- The power to quash FIRs is exceptional but may be invoked where continuance of proceedings would be
unjust.
- Prolonging investigation against an “utterly unaware” contract driver would amount to such injustice.
3.3 Impact of the Decision
- Doctrinal Clarification: Reiterates that mens rea (knowledge & intent) remains central even
after the 2018 amendments to the PC Act; automatic vicarious liability is impermissible.
- Investigative Practice: Lokayukta & ACB must gather concrete evidence of a surrogate’s conscious
involvement before naming them; mere physical handling is inadequate.
- Protection of Low-Level Functionaries: Contract staff, peons, drivers are shielded from reflexive
prosecution when they unwittingly follow superior orders.
- Bail/Quashing Strategy: Provides a robust precedent for early-stage relief through
Section 482 Petitions where foundational demand/acceptance is missing.
- Litigation Efficiency: Filters out frivolous or over-broad arraignments, allowing courts to focus on
culpable public servants.
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
- Section 7(a) PC Act
- Criminalises a public servant’s obtaining/accepting an undue advantage with dishonest intent regarding
performance of public duty. Requires proof of (i) demand, and (ii) conscious acceptance.
- Explanation 2 to Section 7
- Extends liability to cases where the bribe is received through a third party. However, the third party
must also act with knowledge/intention; otherwise prosecution fails.
- Trap Panchanama
- A contemporaneous memo prepared by anti-corruption officers recording how the bribe money is delivered and
recovered, including phenolphthalein tests and conversations.
- Section 20 Presumption
- Once demand and acceptance are proved, court may presume the gratification was a corrupt motive unless rebutted
by the accused.
- Section 482 CrPC
- Empowers High Courts to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.
It is a sparingly used, discretionary power.
5. Conclusion
Murali Krishna R is a lucid affirmation that anti-corruption law punishes culpable intent,
not robotic obedience. By quashing the prosecution of a contract driver who unwittingly handled tainted money, the
Karnataka High Court has:
- Re-asserted the indispensable requirement of “demand + conscious acceptance” for Section 7 liability;
- Prevented misuse of Explanation 2 to rope in innocent auxiliaries; and
- Provided investigating agencies and trial courts with a clear doctrinal lens to differentiate principal
wrongdoers from unaware intermediaries.
The judgment fits seamlessly within a long line of Supreme Court authority yet adds practical nuance: intent cannot
be presumed merely from proximity to bribe money. As such, it is likely to be invoked frequently in motions to
quash or discharge where the prosecution case is bereft of explicit evidence on demand and cognition – thereby
promoting fairness without diluting the fight against corruption.