Police Officer Can't Be Prosecuted For Corruption Without Proof Of Demand Or Acceptance Of Bribe: Karnataka High Court Reaffirms

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that both demand and acceptance of bribe by a public servant to perform a public duty are a pre-requisite to invoke offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. In doing so the court quashed an FIR registered against a police Sub-Inspector for allegedly demanding Rs. 1 Lakh from the complainant to close a case registered against the latter. Referring to Supreme Court's Constitution bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v State (2023) which held that proof of demand and acceptance of gratification is sine qua non for any allegation under Section 7 of PC Act both pre-amendment and post-amendment to the provision, Justice M Nagaprasanna said:"On a coalesce of the judgments rendered by the ApexCourt, as quoted supra, the soul of Section 7 of the Act is demand and acceptance. The unmistakable inference on the interpretation, in the considered view of the Court, would be if there is demand but no acceptance, it would not make an offence under Section 7 of theAct. If there is acceptance but no demand, it would then also make no offence under Section 7 of the Act. An act alleged under Section 7 of the Act should have the ingredients of demand and acceptance and it is for the performance of a public duty or forbearance from performance. Therefore, demand and acceptance should be for the purpose of performance of some public duty. For such performance, there should be work pending at the hands of the public servant against whom Section 7 of the Act is alleged".The high court said that the judgment was considered by it in BEERALINGA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (2024) which was not interfered with by the Supreme Court. "It is admitted that there is no trap and there is not even a prima facie finding that there has been demand and acceptance. There is no tainted money recovered from the hands of the petitioner and it is a fact that the petitioner was instrumental in registering several crimes against the complainant and the complaint against the petitioner is filed undoubtedly to wreak vengeance. The statement of objections filed by the complainant is a vindication of the finding recorded herein above. In that light, there is no warrant to permit investigation to continue six years after registration of the crime, when there is not even a titter of document to permit such investigation," the court said. The prosecution alleged that a complaint was made by one Rajendra against the present complainant wherein the petitioner had investigated the case and had filed the final report in respect of offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The present complainant had filed a complaint with the Lokayukta Police alleging that the petitioner had demanded ₹1,00,000/- for the purpose of filing a 'B' report in respect of the case registered against him. He had alleged that one Ananda is said to have called the complainant over phone and demanded ₹1,00,000/- for the purpose of filing of 'B' report, which would be shared by himself and the petitioner.Based on these allegations an FIR was registered by the then Anti-Corruption Bureau. At the stage of investigation, the petitioner approached the High Court challenging the probe. The petitioner argued that no trap was laid in the present case and there was no demand or acceptance of bribe. The complainant alleged that the petitioner had summoned the complainant to file a 'B' report for which he had demanded bribe. Lokayukta police argued that while there was no trap laid, but there was clear demand.The court noted that admittedly no pre-trap mahazar was drawn, no demand and acceptance is proved even to its prima facie sense, there is no recovery of money from the petitioner and there is no conversation between the complainant and the petitioner. Further the petitioner had placed on record that on the alleged incident date he was not even in Bengaluru. The court thereafter referred to various judgments–pre and post the amendment to Section 7 (Offence relating to public servant being bribed) and said that there is no warrant to permit investigation to continue six years after registration of the crime, when there is "not even a titter of document to permit such investigation".The court allowed the plea and quashed the FIR.Case title: Prabhugowda Patil v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.CRIMINAL PETITION No.5163 OF 2023Click Here To Read/Download OrderCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 72

Police Officer Can't Be Prosecuted For Corruption Without Proof Of Demand Or Acceptance Of Bribe: Karnataka High Court Reaffirms

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags