PC Act | Allegation Of Acceptance Of Bribe Cannot 'Spring From Air', Must Be Demanded For Performing Duty: Karnataka HC Quashes Anonymous Complaint

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed prosecution initiated under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act against a former senior sub-registrar who was booked after an anonymous complaint was received about alleged irregularities in the registrar's office.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Shrikant Bhat and quashed the proceedings initiated against him under Sections 7(a), 7A, 12 and 13(2) of the Act.

It said “There must be work pending on the table of the petitioner for the complainant to be aggrieved of such demand. The concept of demand and acceptance cannot spring from air. There must be a complainant and there must be a public servant; the public servant must have demanded from the complainant and accepted a bribe from the complainant for performing a duty or forbearing such performance.”

The prosecution submitted that an anonymous complaint was filed against the functioning of the Sub-Registrar's office at Gadag. It was alleged that all the staff in the office are in the habit of demanding bribes and therefore, a request was made for visitation to the Sub-Registrar's office and initiation of proceedings.

It was argued that based on this complaint, a crime was registered, a search warrant was secured and the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gadag was searched. It was submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of Rs 9390, and subsequently, a sanction was sought before the special court which registered a case.

The petitioner argued that there was no ingredient of demand and acceptance for an allegation under Section 7 or 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) to be sustained.

It was submitted that no trap proceedings were conducted, there was no bait money, no test was conducted for the notes being the same and that all the ACB did was search the office and attribute all the money found to the petitioner and other office workers. 

The prosecution opposed the plea arguing that certain amounts were recovered from the hands of the petitioner which were beyond Rs.100 from several private parties, thereby attracting Section 7 (a) of the PC act.

It was argued that these factors are a matter of trial and, therefore, the trial should be permitted to continue, as the office of the Sub-Registrar at Gadag had been brooding rampant corruption.

The bench noted that Section 7 directs that any public servant who accepts or attempts to obtain from any person undue advantage with an intention to perform or cause the performance of public duty or to forbear such performance either by himself or by another public servant is said to have committed the offence of taking bribe.

It then said “Therefore the soul of Section 7(a) is demand and acceptance for the performance of public duty or forbearance of such performance. Section 7A deals with taking undue advantage to influence public servants by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of personal influence. The section mandates that whoever accepts or obtains or attempts to obtain from another person for himself or for any other person undue advantage for performance of a public duty or its forbearance is amenable for punishment. 

Referring to the present complaint it observed that it was not clear against whom it was directed and which staff of the SubRegistrar's office were alleged to have indulged themselves in the act of demanding money for the purpose of registration of documents.

In dealing with the search report and seizures made from the office staff, the Bench noted that the petitioner at the time of the search had explained about the cash which had been received for the registration of documents and such documents were also shown to the search party.

The court then observed that the origin of the allegation of demand and acceptance of the bribe was a mystery.

"For an offence under Section 7(a) of the Act which is now alleged against the petitioner, there must be demand and acceptance and if trap is to be laid nuances of trap must be present for which demand and acceptance is again a sine qua non,” it was held.

Accordingly, in deeming the present proceedings an abuse of the process of law and a miscarriage of justice, the Court quashed the proceedings and allowed the plea. 

Appearance: Advocate G. Bharati for Petitioner.

Special Public Prosecutor Anil Kale for respondent.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 27

Case Title: Shrikant Bhat AND The State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Petition No 101560 OF 2023.