MR. MURALI KRISHNA R v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2. Heard Sri S.Prashanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.B. Patil, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - The 2^ndrespondent is the complainant. Petitioner-accused No.2 is a contract employee working as a Driver having joined employment in BESCOM about a month ago on 17-10-2023 before registration of crime. The complainant, an electrical contractor registers a complaint on 23-11-2023 against accused No.1/M.L.Nagaraja before the Lokayukta. It is the case of the complainant that he had approached BESCOM on various occasions from 6-04-2023 till registration of the crime for conversion of work order that was issued from HT-2B1, commercial tariff, to HT-2A1, industrial tariff. It is for the said purpose accused No.1 is said to have demanded a sum of ₹10/- lakhs for conversion of electric supply from commercial tariff to industrial tariff. The demanded sum which was to be at ₹10/- lakhs is negotiated and brought down to ₹7.5/- lakhs. Even this the complainant refusing to pay, reaches

3

the doors of the office of the Lokayukta and registers a complaint on 22-11-2023. Pursuant to the said complaint, a crime is registered in Crime No.53 of 2023. A trap is said to have been laid against the accused by drawing up a trap panchanama. The petitioner/accused No.2 was asked to come to the office on 23-11-2023 by accused No.1 around 3.00 p.m. and was made to sit outside the cabin for some time and then he was called by accused No.1, he was instructed to keep the bag in the car dicky. When the petitioner was keeping the bag in the car dicky, the Lokayukta sleuths conduct a trap. The petitioner is said to have been arrested and investigation is in progress. The petitioner, on the said registration of crime, is before this Court calling in question the very registration of crime.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Driver who had joined the office on contract basis on 17-10-2023. He was not aware what was happening in any quarter of the office. On the said day of trap, he was called to the chamber by accused No.1 and made to sit. After some time, he was handed over a bag to keep it in the boot of the car to which he has

4

obeyed as Driver. The petitioner is said to have performed the said act at which time the Lokayukta sleuths laid a trap on the petitioner and was nabbed with ₹7.5 lakhs in the bag. The petitioner has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe amount on behalf of accused No.1. He is a Driver who had just been appointed is victim of the aforesaid circumstance. He would submit that the proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of law.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri B.B. Patil representing the 1^strespondent would submit that any person accepting bribe on behalf of a public servant would also become punishable under Section 7(a) of the Act. He would submit that it is a matter of trial for the petitioner also to come out clean. But, he would admit the fact that demand is made by accused No.1 and the amount is accepted in the cabin of accused No.1. The amount is found in the boot of the car of accused No.1. The car Driver was the petitioner. He would admit another fact that the Driver had joined duty on 17-10-2023 and the trap had happened on 23-11-2023, a month and 6 days after he joined. He would nonetheless seek dismissal of

5

the petition contending that the petitioner can seek his discharge before the concerned Court after filing of the charge sheet.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute as they are a matter of record. Accused No.1 is Chief General Manager in BESCOM and accused No.2/petitioner is his Driver who was appointed one month before the alleged laying of trap. The allegation of the complainant is that accused No.1 had demanded bribe amount of ₹7.5 lakhs to convert the tariff from commercial to industrial. Originally the demand was ₹10/- lakhs and the negotiation led to reduction to ₹7.5 lakhs. The complainant registers the complaint before the Lokayukta on 22-11-2023. Since the entire issue has now triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It reads as follows:

"ಾಂಕ:: 22-11-2023 ರವ

ೆ:

6

ಾನ ೕ ಅೕಕರು, ೆಂಗಳರು ನಗರ-2 ಕಾ ಟಕ ೋ ಾಯುಕ,"

ಎಂ.ಎ .$%ಂ&,

ೆಂಗಳರು.

ಇಂದ^:

ಪ*+ಾ, $.ಎ-. $- ನಂ.ೇೌಡ, 35 ವಷ , ೆಲಸ: ಎೆQÖçಕ4 ಕಂ5ಾ*ಕ67, 8ಾಸ ನಂ.312, 5ೇ ಮುಖ ರ;ೆ", 2ೇ ಾ=< , 3ೇ ಹಂತ, ಬಸ8ೇಶBರನಗರ, ೆಂಗಳರು-560079.

ªÆÉ . À̧A. 80952 92617. ಾನCೆ,

Dಷಯ: ೆ;ಾEಂ DದುF ಸಂಪಕ ವನುG ಕಮH ಯ4Iಂದ ಇಂಡJKೕ ೆ 5ಾ

L ಕನBಷ - ಾM ೊಡಲು ಲಂಚದ ಹಣ ೆE ೇM ೆ ಇP6ರುವ ಾಗCಾಜು, RೕL ಜನರ4 ಾೇಜ7 ( ಾSಾ ಚರTೆ) ಇವರ DರುದU ಾನೂನು ಕ*ಮ ಜರುVಸಲು ೋ

.

~ * ~ ಾನು WೕಲEಂಡ DXಾಸದ< ಸಂ;ಾರ ಸWೕತ8ಾV 8ಾಸ ಾM ೊಂMದುU, ಇYೇ DXಾಸದ< "Z*ೕ ಚಕ* ಎೆ QÖçಕ4[" ಎಂಬ ಕ\ೇ ಯನುG ಇಟು6 ೊಂಡು ಎೆQÖçಕ4 ಕಂ5ಾ*ಕ67 ೆಲಸವನುG ಾM ೊಂMರು+ೆ"ೕೆ. ಾನು ೆಂಗಳರು ಪ]ವ ವಲಯ, ದ^ಣ +ಾೋ< =, ಇ_ಐ_ ಏ Sಾ, 8ೈc

dೕ4%ನ<ರುವ M/s. STT Global data centres India Pvt Ltd., eಾ

Lನ< ಇರುತY" ೆ. ಆ7.ಆ7.ನಂ.E12EHT-38 ಆVರುತY" ೆ. ಸದ ಕಮH ಯ4

5ಾ

L HT-2B1 hಂದ HT-2A1 ಇಂಡJKಯ4 5ಾ

Lೆ ಕನBಷ - ಾM ೊಡುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ

ಾನು ಸದ

ಕಂಪIhಂದ ಾಂಕ: 15-03-2023 ರಂದು ಗುj" ೆ (Purchase Order) ¥ÀqÉ¢gÄÀ vÉÛãÉ.

7

ಈ ೆಲಸ ೆE ಸಂಬಂJದಂ+ೆ ಾನು ಾಂಕ:06-04-203 ರಂದು ಸlಾಯಕ PÁAiÄÀ ð¥Á®PÀ ಇಂmIಯ7, ಮದYೇವಪnರ ಇ-12 ಉಪ Dpಾಗ, ೆಂಗಳರು ರವ

ೆ CfðAiÀÄ£ÄÀ ß ಸ

ನನG ೆಲಸ ೆE ಸಂಬಂJದ ಕಡತವn ಾಂಕ:22-06-2023 ರಂದು ಮುಖ ಇಂmIಯ7 (DದುF)(J.ಓ&ಎಂ) BMAZ-NORTH, BESCOM, ನಂ.8, ನಂದುಗ Cೋr, ೆ£ëÀ-5ೌ£ï, ೆಂಗಳರು ಇವ

ಂದ RೕL ಜನರ4 ಾೇಜ7 ( ಾSಾ ಚರTೆ), ೆ;ಾEಂ ಾೕ Cೇ mï ಕ\ೇ

,

ೆ.ಆ7.ಸಕ 4, ೆಂಗಳರು ರವ ೆ ಬಂರುತ"Yೆ.

ನನG ೆಲಸ ೆE ಸಂಬಂJದಂ+ೆ ಕXೆದ ಸು ಾರು 4 jಂಗsIಂದ ಸು ಾರು 4-5 pಾ ²Ãæ

ಾಗCಾಜು, RೕL ಜನರ4 ಾೇಜ7 ( ಾSಾ ಚರTೆ), ೆ;ಾEಂ ಾೕ Cೇc ಕ\ೇ ೆ.ಆ7.ಸಕ 4, ೆಂಗಳರು ರವರನುG pೇP IೕM ಾತಾMYಾಗ ಅವರು ಪ*j ಸಲವn ೆಲಸ ಾM ೊಡುವnYಾV lೇs ಕಳtuಸುjದ" ರU ು. ಆದCೆ ನನG 5ಾ , ಕನBಷ - ಕಡತವನುG M.n., ೆ;ಾEಂ

ರವ

ೆ ಕಳtuJ ೊಡುವ ೆಲಸ ಾM ೊP6ರುವnಲ<.

ಾಂಕ:16-11-2023 ರಂದು ಸಂ.ೆ ಸು ಾರು 5.30 ಗಂ5ೆೆ Z*ೕ ಾಗCಾಜು ರವರ ಕ\ೇ ೆ

lೋV pೇP ಾM ೆಲಸ ೆE ಸಂಬಂJದಂ+ೆ ಾತಾMYಾಗ Z*ೕ ಾಗCಾಜು ರವರು ೈಸೆG ಾM eೇಪ7ನ< 10 ಲ ಎಂದು ಬCೆದು ಹಣವನುG ತರುವಂ+ೆ lೇಳt+ಾC" ೆ. ಅದ ೆE ಾನು ಅvೊ6ಂದು ಹಣವನುG ೊಡಲು ;ಾಧDಲ<, ಾನು PèÉöÊAcೊಂೆ ಾತಾM jsಸುವnYಾV lೇs ಬಂYೆನು. ಾಂಕ:18-11-2023 ರಂದು Z*ೕ ಾಗCಾಜು ರವರು ಮYಾಹG ಸು ಾರು 1.12 ಸಮಯದ< ಅವರ w ೈ4 ನಂ.94498 44899 Iಂದ ನನG w ೈ4 ನಂ.80952 92617 ೆ 8ಾಟ[,ನ< x ಾ4 ಾMದUರು. ಾನು ಪnನಃ ಅವ

ೆ ಮYಾಹG ಸು ಾರು 1.13 ಸಮಯದ< ನನG w ೈ4

ನಂ.80952 92617 Iಂದ Z*ೕ ಾಗCಾಜು ರವರು w ೈ4 ನಂ.94498 44899 ೆ 8ಾಟ[, ಾ4 ಾMYೆನು. ಆಗ ಾಗCಾಜು ರವರು ಾ4

Jೕz ಾM ಆdೕ ೆ Sಾ8ಾಗ ಬರುjೕ" ಯ ಎಂದು

ೇsದರು? ಅದ ೆE ಾನು ಈ ನ 3.00 ಗಂ5ೆ Wೕೆ ಕ\ೇ

ೆ ಬರುವnYಾV jsJYೆನು.

ಅದರಂ+ೆ ಾನು ಅYೇ ನ ಾಂಕ:18-11-2023 ರಂದು ಸಂ.ೆ ಸು ಾರು 4.00 ಗಂ5ೆೆ Z*ೕ ಾಗCಾಜು ರವರ ಕ\ೇ

ೆ lೋV ಅವರನುG pೇP ಾM ಾತಾMYಾಗ ಅವರು ನನUÉ ಏಾಯು"

ಎಂದು ೇsದರು. ಅದ ೆE ಾನು ಸ7 ಅvೊ6ಂದು ಅ ೌಂc ಸBಲ{ ಕMW ಾM ೊ½î ಎಂದು ೇsYಾಗ, ಾಗCಾಜು ರವರು ಾಂಕ:18-11-2023 Iೕವn Iಮ| ;ಾವ} ರದ ಎೆQÖç¹n $4ನ 5ಾ L ಕನBಷ -

ಅನುG ೇಗ ಾMJ ೊಂಡCೆ ಅದು ಈ jಂಗsೆ ಅನುಗುಣ8ಾಗುತY" ೆ. ಅದ ೆE Iೕವn ೇೆ ೇsದ ಹಣವನುG Iೕಡುವಂ+ೆ ೇM ೆ ಇಡು+ಾ"Cೆ. ಅದ ೆE ಾನು ಮ+ೊ"ªÄÉ ä ಅವರ < ಹಣವನುG ಸBಲ{ ಕMW ಾM ೊs ಎಂYಾಗ Iೕೆ lೇಳt ಎಂದು, 10-L ಎಂದು eೇಪ7ನ< ಬCೆದು +ೋ J, ಅದ ೆE

Iೕೆ lೇಳt ಾನು ೋM lೇಳt+ ೕ"ೆ ೆ ಎಂದು lೇsದರು ಅದ ೆE ಾಮ eೇ¥À7ನ<, 7-L ಎಂದು

8

ಬCೆಯು+ ೕ"ೆ ೆ. ಅದ ೆE ಾಗCಾಜು ರವರು ಓ ೆ Dåqï M£ï ¥ÉsÆÃgï JAzÀÄ lೇsYಾಗ, ಾನು 5ೋಟ4 8 ಎಂದು lೇಳt+ "ೇೆ. ಅದ ೆE ಅವರು ೋ ºÉr «vï 8 ಾ= ಎಂದು ಲಂಚದ ಹಣ ೆE ೇM ೆ ಇP6ರು+ಾC" ೆ.

ನಂತರ ಾನು 20% M¸ËÌAc ಎಂದು lೇಳt+ ೕ"ೆ ೆ. ಅದ ೆE ಅವರು ೕeಾವs M¸ËÌAc ಎಂದು lೇಳt+ಾ"Cೆ. ಅದ ೆE ಾನು ೕeಾವs ಆೋಯು" ಸ7 ಇದು ನೂ ಇಯ7 M ¸ËÌAc ಎಂದು lೇsYೆನು.

ನಂತರ ಾನು 50 ಅನುG ಕMW ಾM ೊs 7.5 eೈನ4 ಾM ೊs ಎಂದು lೇsYೆನು. ಅದ ೆE ಾಗCಾಜು ರವರು Iನಗೂ ಅವ ಾಶ Jಗ ೇಕು ಎಂದು lೇಳt+ಾC" ೆ. ಅದ ೆE ಾನು ಕಂಪIಯವರು ನನೆ 2 W€ 8ಾc lೊಸ eಾ*.ೆ=6 ಅನುG IೕMರು+ಾC" ೆ ಎಂದು lೇsYಾಗ ಅದ ೆE ಅವರು ೋlೆr ಎಂಬುYಾV ಎರಡು ಸಲ lೇಳt+ಾC" ೆ. ಅದ ೆE ಾನು Iಮೆ ಾ4 ಾM jsಸು+ ೕ"ೆ ೆ ಎಂದು lೇs ಅವರ ಕ\ೇ

hಂದ lೊರ ಬರು+ೇ" ೆ.

Z*ೕ ಾಗCಾಜು ರವರು ನನG ೆಲಸ ೆE ಸಂಬಂJದ ಕಡತವನುG ಅವರ ಕ\ೇ

ಯು<

ಾಂಕ:22-06-2023 ರಂದು JBೕಕ

Jದು,U ಸದ

ಕಡತವನುG ಮುಂನ ಕ*ಮ ಾEV fೈCೆಕ67 5ೆGಕ4,

ೆ;ಾEಂ ರವ

ೆ ಕಳtuಸ ೇತು". ಆದCೆ Z*ೕ ಾಗCಾಜು ರವರು ಾನು ಲಂಚದ ಹಣವನುG ೊಡದ ಾರಣ ಸು ಾರು 4 jಂಗsIಂದಲೂ ತನG ಕ\ೇ

ಯ<‚ೕ ಕಡತ ಾ ಇಟು6 ೊಂMರು+ಾC" ೆ.

ಾಂಕ:21-11-2023 ರಂದು Cಾj* ಸು ಾರು 8.36 ಗಂ5ೆೆ 8ಾಟ[,ನ< x ØÀ̧ ಾ4 IೕMರು+ಾC" ೆ. ನಂತರ ಾನು Cಾj* 9.10 ಮತು" 9.13 ಗಂ5ೆೆ 8ಾಟ[,ನ< ಾ4 ಾಡಾV ಾಗCಾಜು ರವರು

Jೕz ಾಡಲ<. ಪnನಃ ಾಗCಾಜು ರವರು Cಾj* 9.29 ಗಂ5ೆೆ 8ಾಟ[, ನ < x¸ØÀ ಾ4 ೊP6ರು+ಾ"Cೆ. ನಂತರ ಾನು Cಾj* 9.33 ಗಂ5ೆೆ 8ಾಟ[,ನ< ಾ4 ಾಡು+ೇ" ೆ ಅವರು Jೕz ಾಡಲ<. ಪnನಃ ಾಗCಾಜು ರವCೆ ನನೆ Cಾj* 9.35 ಗಂ5ೆೆ 8ಾಟ[, ನ< ಾ4 ಾM ಏನು ಸ ಾƒಾರ ಎಂದು ೇsದರು ಅದ ೆE ಾನು ಅCೇಂ„ ಾfಾ" ಇI ಸ7, Dಷಯ jsJUೕI ಕಂಪIಯ …ಾಮ Pೕ , ಾX ೆ ಾMದುU, ಆdೕ ಕfೆ ಬj I ಎಂದು lೇsYೆನು. ಅದ ೆE ಅವರು ಆಯು" ಎಂದು lೇsದರು. ಇವCೊಂೆ 8ಾಟ[, ಾ4ನ< ನfೆJರುವ ಸಂpಾಷTೆಯನುG ನನG IೊGಂದು w ೈ4 ೕ- ಮೂಲಕ 8ಾ†[ Cೆ ಾr ಾM ೊಂMರು+ೇ" ೆ.

WೕಲEಂಡಂ+ೆ ಾಂಕ: 18-11-2023 ರಂದು ಾನು Z*ೕ ಾಗCಾಜು, RೕL ಜನರ4 ಾೇಜ7 ( ಾSಾ ಚರTೆ) ರವCೊಂೆ ನfೆJರುವ ಸಂpಾಷTೆಯನುG ಾನು ನನG w ೈ4 ೕ- ಮೂಲಕ 8ಾ†[ Cೆ ಾr ಾM ೊಂMದುU ಮತು " ಾಂಕ:21-11-2023 ರಂದು 8ಾಟ[, ಾ4ನ< ನfೆJರುವ ಸಂpಾಷTೆಯನುG ಾನು ನನG IೊGಂದು w ೈ4 ೕ- ಮೂಲಕ 8ಾ†[

9

Cೆ ಾr ಾM ೊಂMರು+ ೕ"ೆ ೆ. ಈ ಎರಡು ಸಂpಾಷTೆಗಳನುG ನಮ| SanDisk Cruzer Blade USB 2.0 Flash Drive 16 GB eೆನfೆ‡z ವಾ hJ ೊಂMರು+ "ೇೆ. ²æà ಾಗCಾಜು, RೕL ಜನರ4 ಾೇಜ7 ( ಾSಾ ಚರTೆ), ೆ;ಾEಂ ಾೕ Cೇc ಕ\ೇ

, ೆ.ಆ7.ಸಕ 4, ೆಂಗಳರು ರವರು ಸ ಾ

ಕತ ವವನುG Iವ uಸಲು ªÉÆzÀ®Ä gÆÀ .10 ಲ

ಲಂಚದ ಹಣ ೆE ೇM ೆ ಇಟು6 ೊೆಯYಾV ರೂ. 7.5 ಲ ೆE ೇM ೆ ಇP6ರು+ಾC" ೆ. ನನೆ ಲಂಚದ ಹಣವನುG ೊಟು6 ೆಲಸ ಾMJ ೊಳಲು ಇಷ6Dಲ<ದ ಾರಣ ಲಂಚದ ಹಣ ೆE ೇM ೆ ಇP6ರುವ Z*ೕ ಾಗCಾಜು ರವರ Dರುದˆ ಸೂ=ತ ಾನೂನು ಕ*ಮ ೈೊಳtವಂ+ೆ ೋರು+ ೕ"ೆ ೆ. ಇದCೊಂೆ ಲಂಚದ ಹಣ ೆE ೇM ೆ ಇP6ರುವ ಬ ‰ೆ ನfೆJರುವ ಸಂpಾಷTೆ ಇರುವ SanDisk Cruzer Blade USB 2.0 Flash Drive 16 GB ¥É£ïqæÉöÊªï ªÀÄvÄÀ Û «zÀÄåvï PÉ® À̧PÌÉ À̧A§A¢ü¹zÀ 1) Puchase order 2) Work order -Annexure. 3) ¢£ÁAPÀ :06-04-2023 ರಂದು ಸlಾಯಕ ಾಯ eಾಲಕ ಇಂmIಯ7, ಮಹYೇವಪnರ ಇ-12 ಉಪ Dpಾಗ, É̈AUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀjUÉ CfðAiÀÄ ¥æwÀ^,

. 4) M/s. STT Global data centres India Pvt Ltd., DದುF $4 ಪ*j. 5) ಾಂಕ:26-05-2023 ರಂದು ಎಇಇ (DದುF) ಇ-12 ಉಪ Dpಾಗ, ಮಹYೇವಪnರ, ೆ;ಾEಂ, ೆಂಗಳರು ರವರು ಇಇ (DದುF), 8ೈnáÃ4% Dpಾಗ, ೆ;ಾEಂ ೆಂಗಳರು ರವ ೆ ಬCೆರುವ ಪತ*, 6)

ಾಂಕ:22-06-2023 ರಂದು ಮುಖ ಇಂmIಯ7 (DದುF)(J.ಓ&ಎಂ) BMAZ-NORTH, BESCOM, ೆ£Àë-5ೌ-, ೆಂಗಳರು ಇವರು RೕL ಜನರ4 ಾೇಜ7 ( ಾSಾ ಚರTೆ), ೆ;ಾEಂ ಾೕ Cೇc ಕ\ೇ

, ೆ.ಆ7.ಸಕ 4. ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀjUÉ §gÉ¢gÄÀ ªÀ ¥Àv.Àæ 7) CMG OP Bescom Nagaraj +91 94498 44899 ಎಂಬುYಾVರುವ w ೈ4 ¹ÌçÃ- Šಾc lಾಗೂ Z*ೕ ಾಗCಾಜು ರವCೊಂೆ 8ಾ5ಾ[,ನ< ನfೆJರುವ ೆCೆಗಳ Dವರ ಇರುವ ಮೂರು w ೈ4 ¹ÌçÃ- Šಾc ಗಳt ಒಟು6 11 ಪnಟಗಳನುG ಲಗjJ" ರು+ ೕ"ೆ ೆ.

ವಂದೆಗXೆಂೆ

ತಮ| DŠಾBJ

À̧»/-22/11/2023

(ಪ*+ಾ, $.ಎ-.)"

A perusal at the entire complaint no where refers to the petitioner/accused No.2. Not a word is found against accused No.2. It is entirely dedicated to accused No.2. Vivid details of different

10

occasions are narrated. The audio recording done by the complainant is handed over to the Lokayukta. The Lokayukta then draws up a trap panchanama. In the trap panchanama again there is no reference to the name of the petitioner. In the trap panchanama two paragraphs are dedicated to the petitioner. The paragraphs read as follows:

"…. …. …. ತIŒಾ ಾ ಯವರು ಆCೋ_-2 ರವCಾದ Z*ೕ ಮುರುs ಕೃಷ Ž ಆ7. ಆCೋ_-1 Z*ೕ ಾಗCಾಜು ಎಂ.ಎ4. ರವರ ಾ

ನ fೆ‡ವ7 ರವ

ೆ Iೕವn _Sಾ ದುYಾರ

ಂದ ಪfೆದು ೊಂMರುವ

ರೂ. 7.5 ಲ ಲಂಚದ ಹಣವನುG ಎ< ಇಟು6 ೊಂMೕU ಎಂದು ೇsYಾಗ, ಅವರು +ಾನು ಓMಸುವ

ಇೊGೕ8ಾ ೆಎ-03 ಎಎ-7347 ಾ

ನ MEಯ<ರುವ ನನG ಕಪn{ ಬಣŽದ ಾ&ನ< ಇP6ರುವnYಾV jsJದರು. ತIŒಾ ಾ

ಯವರ ಸೂಚೆಯಂ+ೆ ಆCೋ_-2 ಮುರುs ಕೃಷŽ ಆ7 ನವರು ಾ ನ

MEಯನುG +ೆೆದು ಅದರ<ದU ಾೇ„ ಾ&ನಂjದU ಒಂದು ಕಪn{ ಬಣದŽ ಾ&ನ m, ಓಪ- ಾM ಅದರ< ರೂ.7.5 ಲ ಇದU ಒಂದು *ೕ ಕಲ7 ೈಾ- ಾ& +ೆೆದು ತIŒಾ ಾ ಗsೆ

+ೋ

Jದರು.

ನಂತರ ತIŒಾ ಾ

ಗಳt ಆCೋ_-2 ರವರನುG ಕು

ತು ಲಂಚದ ಹಣ ಪfೆದು ೊಂಡ ಾ ಬೆ‰

Dƒಾ

ಸಾV ಆCೋ_-2 ರವರು ನನG Wೕಾ ಾ

ಯವCಾದ Z*ೕ ಾಗCಾಜು ಎಂ.ಎ4. RೕL

ಜನರ4 ಾೇಜ7, ೆ;ಾEಂ ರವರು dSಾ  ರವರು ೊfಾ"Cೆ ಅವರ .ೊ+ೆೆ lೋಗು ಇಲ< ಎಂದು lೇsದU

ಂದ ಾನು dSಾ  Z*ೕ ಪ*+ಾ, $.ಎ-. ರವರ ಕfೆhಂದ ಲಂಚದ ಹಣವನುG ¹éÃPÀj¹ £À£ßÀ ಾ

ನ MEಯ< ಇP6 ೊಂfೆನು ಎಂಬುYಾV jsJದರು."

The trap panchanama refers to accused No.2/petitioner that he was a Driver of Innova Car which accused No.1 was holding and ₹7.5 lakhs was given to him to put it in the boot of the car. Accused No.2 is said to have opened boot of the car to keep it at the said place.

11

At that time the trap is laid. Prior to the trap panchanamaa pre- trap panchanama was also done by the sleuths' of Lokayukta. On the date of the trap certain conversation happens which is recorded by the complainant. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, all that is found is as follows:

"…. …. ….

(Emphasis added)

The complainant was present in the cabin of accused No.1. He gives

him the money. Accused No.1 asks what is the amount. The

complainant says it is ₹7.5 lakhs; is it OK is what is asked. Accused

No.1 says that it is OK and said that he will forward the report next

week. Till this point accused No.2 is not in the picture. Accused

12

No.2 is called, handed over the bag, complainant asks accused No.2 'do you want to count'. Accused No.2 says 'no'. Complainant hands over the bag and asks his name; he has answered 'his name is Murali'. Barring this, there is nothing that is done by accused No.2. The Driver who had admittedly joined a month ago in the office of accused No.1 on contract basis is dragged into the web of crime on the circumstances generated by accused No.1. The entire recording is against accused No.1 who has clearly demanded and accepted the bribe. Nothing beyond what is noted in the recording would be necessary to pin down accused No.1. But, the same cannot be said to accused No.2, a humble Driver who becomes a victim of circumstances of demand and acceptance done by accused No.1.

8. What is alleged against the petitioner is Section 7(a) of the Act. Section 7of the Act reads as follows:

"7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed.—Any public servant who,—

(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or

13

(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or

(c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person,

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation 1.—For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper.

Illustration.—A public servant, 'S' asks a person, 'P' to give him an amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine ration card application on time. 'S' is guilty of an offence under this section.

Explanation 2.—For the purpose of this section,—

(i) the expressions "obtains" or "accepts" or "attempts to obtain" shall cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or "accepts" or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another person, by abusing his position as a public servant or by using his personal influence over another public servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means;

(ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third party."

14

Interpretation of Section 7(a) of the Act need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of MADAN LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN¹, has held as follows:

"…. …. ….

18. On an examination of the evidence, there is considerable doubt raised in our mind, which qualifies as reasonable doubt, as to whether there was acceptance of bribe amounts by both the accused. True, the officers of the trap team spoke about the handing over of the money by the complainant to the 1st accused who handed over half, to the 2nd accused; which amounts were said to have been put by both the accused in their trouser pockets. PW 8 who led the trap team merely spoke of a recovery of the bribe amounts from the possession of the accused and the hands and trousers of the accused having positively reacted to the test solution. The said deposition is contrary to the statements made by the independent witnesses that some notes were found thrown on the floor. None of the officers spoke of any of the accused having taken out the notes and thrown it on the floor.

19. On an examination of the entire evidence, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt, the demand of bribe and its acceptance, in a trap laid by the trap team of the ACB. In that circumstance there is no question of a presumption under Section 20 arising in this case. The conviction and sentence of the accused as brought out by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court [Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine Raj 914] , hence, is set aside. The bail bonds, if any executed by the accused, in these cases, shall stand cancelled."

(Emphasis supplied)

1 (2025) 4 SCC 624

15

A little earlier, the Apex Court in the case of NEERAJ DUTTA

v. STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI)², has held as follows:

"…. …. ….

10. Reliance could also be placed on C.K. Damodaran Nair v. Union of India [C.K. Damodaran Nair v. Union of India, (1997) 9 SCC 477: 1997 SCC (Cri) 654] ("C.K. Damodaran Nair"). That was a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ("the 1947 Act" for the sake of convenience). Speaking of a charge under Section 7 of the Act, it was held that the prosecution was required to prove that:

(i) the appellant was a public servant at the material time;

(ii) the appellant accepted or obtained a gratification other than legal remuneration; and

(iii) the gratification was for illegal purpose.

11. While discussing the expression "accept", it was observed in C.K. Damodaran Nair case [C.K. Damodaran Nair v. Union of India, (1997) 9 SCC 477: 1997 SCC (Cri) 654] that "accept" means to take or receive with a "consenting mind". Consent can be established not only by leading evidence of prior agreement but also from the circumstances surrounding the transaction itself without proof of such prior agreement. If an acquaintance of a public servant in expectation and with the hope that in future, if need be, would be able to get some official favour from him, voluntarily offers any gratification and if the public servant willingly takes or receives such gratification it would certainly amount to "acceptance". Therefore, it cannot be said, as an abstract proposition of law, that without a prior demand, there cannot be "acceptance". The position will, however, be different so far as an offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the 1947 Act is concerned. Under the said Section, the prosecution has to prove that the accused

"obtained" the valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt

2 (2023) 4 SCC 731

16

or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant and that too without the aid of the statutory presumption under Section 4(1) of the 1947 Act as it is available only in respect of offences under Sections 5(1)(a) and (b) and not under Sections 5(1)(c), (d) or (e) of the 1947 Act. According to this Court, "obtain" means to secure or gain (something) as a result of request or effort. In the case of obtainment, the initiative vests in the person who receives and, in that context, a demand or request from him will be a primary requisite for an offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the 1947 Act unlike an offence under Section 161 of the Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"), which can be established by proof of either "acceptance" or

"obtainment".

Conflict in the three decisions?

12. On a perusal of the Order of Reference, we find that it has been discerned by a Bench of three Judges that there is a conflict in the decisions of two three-Judge Benches of this Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. [B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014)

13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] ("B. Jayaraj"); P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P. [P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri)

11] ("P. Satyanarayana Murthy") with the decision in M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. [M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., (2001) 1 SCC 691 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 258] ("M. Narsinga Rao") with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act when the primary evidence of the complainant is unavailable. Thus, in the absence of primary evidence of the complainant due to his death or non-availability, is it permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution, is the neat question which is under consideration by this Constitution Bench.

Trilogy of cases

13. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to consider in detail the judgments referred to in the Order of Reference.

17

(A) B. Jayaraj [B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543]

14. In B. Jayaraj [B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55: (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543], PW 2 the complainant therein did not support the prosecution case under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. The complainant therein disowned making the complaint and had stated in his deposition that the amount of Rs 250 was paid to the accused with a request that the same may be deposited in the bank as fee for the renewal of his licence. The complainant was not willing to support the case of the prosecution. The complainant was therefore declared "hostile".This Court observed that the complainant did not support the case of the prosecution insofar as demand made by the accused for the bribe is concerned and the prosecution did not examine any other witness present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint and in the absence of any other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of the complainant therein and the complaint (Ext. P-11) could not be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnished proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. The only other material available was the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused therein. It was observed that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand would not bring home the offence under Section 7. Therefore, the use of illegal means or abuse of position by a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage was not held to be established insofar as the offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act is concerned.

15. It was further observed in B. Jayaraj case [B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not also be drawn in respect of an offence under Section 7 of the Act. That such a presumption could have been drawn only if there was proof of acceptance of illegal gratification for which proof of demand was a sine qua non and as the same was lacking in the said case, the

18

primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 could be drawn were wholly absent. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and appeal was allowed.

(P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State Of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 11]

16. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy [P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152: (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 11], the fact was that during the trial of charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) and Section 13(2) of the Act, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and also adduced documentary evidence in support of the charges. But the complainant therein had died prior thereto and therefore, could not be examined by the prosecution. According to the complainant, he was disinclined to pay the illegal gratification as demanded by the public servant and hence had filed the complaint with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti- Corruption Bureau, Kurnool and sought action against the appellant in the said case.

17. This Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy [P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152 :

(2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 11] by placing reliance on B. Jayaraj [B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri)

543] observed that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. This is because proof of demand is a sine qua non or an indispensable essentiality and a mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. That proof of acceptance of illegal gratification could follow only if there was proof of demand. That proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in the absence thereof, the charge would thereby fail. In other words, mere acceptance of any amount by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under the said Sections of the Act. It was observed that

19

in the absence of proof of demand, a legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act would also not arise.

18. It was further observed in P. Satyanarayana Murthy [P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 11] that the material on record in the said case when judged on the touchstone of the legal principle discussed, left no doubt that the prosecution in the said case had failed to prove unequivocally the demand of illegal gratification and thus, the prosecution and the conviction of the appellant under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act was not sustainable."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court again in the case of SOUNDARAJAN v. STATE³, has held as follows:

"…. …. ….

9. He relied on this Court's decisions in Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar [Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar, (2011) 9 SCC 272 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 689] and Union of India v. Ajeet Singh [Union of India v. Ajeet Singh, (2013) 4 SCC 186 : (2013)

2 SCC (Cri) 347 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 321] . The learned counsel lastly relied upon a decision of the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731: (2023) 2 SCC (Cri) 352] for submitting that a demand for gratification can be established even on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

Finding on proof of demand

10. We have considered the submissions. It is well settled that for establishing the commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, proof of demand of gratification and acceptance of the gratification is a sine qua non. Moreover, the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Nct Of Delhi) . of 3 2023 SCC OnLine SC 424

20

Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731: (2023) 2 SCC (Cri) 352] has reiterated that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act can be invoked only on proof of facts in issue, namely, the demand of gratification by the accused and the acceptance thereof.

11. As stated earlier, complainant PW 2 has not supported the prosecution. He has not said anything in his examination-in-chief about the demand made by the appellant. The Public Prosecutor cross-examined PW 2. The witness stated that there was no demand of a bribe made by the appellant. According to him, he filed a complaint as the return of the sale deed was delayed. Though PW 2 accepted that he had filed the complaint, in the cross-examination, he was not confronted with the material portions of the complaint in which he had narrated how the alleged demand was made. The Public Prosecutor ought to have confronted the witness with his alleged prior statements in the complaint and proved that part of the complaint through the police officer concerned who had reduced the complaint into writing. However, that was not done.

12. Now, we turn to the evidence of the shadow witness (PW 3). In the examination-in-chief, he stated that the appellant asked PW 2 whether he had brought the amount. PW 3 did not say that the appellant made a specific demand of gratification in his presence to PW 2. To attract Section 7 of the PC Act, the demand for gratification has to be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. The word used in Section 7, as it existed before 26-7-2018, is "gratification". There has to be a demand for gratification. It is not a simple demand for money, but it has to be a demand for gratification. If the factum of demand of gratification and acceptance thereof is proved, then the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked, and the court can presume that the demand must be as a motive or reward for doing any official act. This presumption can be rebutted by the accused."

(Emphasis supplied)

21

The afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court would clearly indicate that demand and acceptance are sine qua non to the offence under Section 7 of the Act. The twin pillars of demand and acceptance must be firmly established. In the absence of either the edifice of the prosecution crumbles. There is neither demand nor acceptance of bribe by accused No.2. It is not the case of the complainant even that accused No.2 has demanded or accepted.

9. The prosecution places reliance on explanation 2 to Section 7, which criminalizes acceptance by a third party on behalf of a public servant. Even this provision cannot be stretched to a breaking point, so as to ensnare a contract Driver utterly unaware of the sordid transaction unfolding before him, when he was asked to keep the bag in the boot by accused No.1. The recordings upon which reliance is placed by the prosecution are replete with elaborate dialogue incriminating accused No.1 and are deafeningly silent, as to any demand, acceptance or knowledge on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, he is unnecessarily

22

brought into the frame of the crime, merely because he was present and obeying his superior for placing the bag in the car boot.

10. In the light of the offence being goaded against accused No.1, the recordings in its entirety are not against accused No.2. The demand and acceptance are made by accused No.1. It is accused No.1 who has to justify his action and not the petitioner. As observed hereinabove, a humble contract employee who was just 40 days old to his duty as Driver, is caught in the web of crime. Even if the incident is taken as true, it would not amount to an offence under Section 7(a) of the Act. Permitting further investigation even against the petitioner in the case at hand or even filing of the charge sheet, would on the face of it, become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.

23

(ii) Crime No.53 of 2023 pending before the XXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bengaluru stands quashed qua

petitioner/accused No.2.

(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings pending against accused No.1.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA)

JUDGE

Bkp

CT:MJ

24