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.