The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of specific and credible evidence to establish the commission of a cognizable offence, especially in cases involving allegations of bribery.

JUDGMENT

K. Natarajan, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No. 1 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered against him in crime No. 39/21 by the 1st respondent-Anti Corruption Bureau for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a), 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act' for short).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Counsel for respondent No. 1 and the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2-complainant.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of respondent No. 2, the ACB-police have registered a case against the petitioner.

4. The de-facto complainant alleged in his complaint dated 20.09.2021 that his uncle Narayanaswamy and one H.M. Balakrishna were having land bearing Sy. No. 40/P63 measuring 27 guntas which was acquired by the KIADB and also the land bearing Sy. N0.76/P5 measuring 30 guntas belongs to one Venkataramanappa was also acquired by the KIADB, but the compensation was not yet paid. Therefore, the land owners have executed GPA in his favour for receiving the compensation. Accordingly, the complainant approached the petitioner, who is the Special Land Acquisition Officer-I working in KIADB, for release of the compensation and the petitioner was said to be demanded bribe in the month of August 2021. Accordingly, the complainant said to have paid Rs. 5.00 lakhs and Rs. 4.00 lakhs respectively on the aforesaid survey number, to the hands of accused No. 2 Girish, who is said to be relative of petitioner. It is further alleged by the complainant that, within 3-4 days, the petitioner-accused demanded further amount. Then he took Rs. 4.00 lakhs and approached the petitioner for payment. The petitioner directed the complainant to pay the said amount to accused No. 2 and accordingly, the complainant paid it.

5. The complainant further alleged that on 17.09.2021, he tried to approach the petitioner, but he could not meet. Hence, he met accused No. 2 and accused No. 2 said to have told the complainant that the said amount was paid for earlier one. The accused demanded further, which was audio recorded by the complainant. Thereafter, he tried to meet the petitioner on 18.09.2021, but he could not the complainant further alleges that he has already paid Rs. 10.50 lakhs to the petitioner-accused, who demanded further amount of Rs. 2.50 lakhs, but the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe. Hence, he lodged the complaint.

6. After registering the case, the police arranged trap and sent Rs. 2.00 lakhs through respondent No. 2 along with shadow panch witness and that on 21.09.2021, the de facto complainant along with shadow witness went to the chamber of the petitioner and came out and handed over cash to accused No. 3, who is the Manager of accused No. 1 and the police trapped accused No. 3 and arrested him, and the cash was seized by ACB police team and then, they also arrested the petitioner-accused No. 1 and they have been remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, they have been released on bail. Being aggrieved with registering FIR by the respondent No. 1, the petitioner is before this Court praying for quashing the FIR on various grounds.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated and falsely arrested. Absolutely, there is no demand and acceptance of the bribe by the petitioner. Demand and acceptance is the necessary ingredient to attract Section 7(A) of PC Act. There is no proof of voice record to show that the petitioner demanded bribe on the day of trap and there is no material to show that the petitioner has directed accused No. 3 to receive the amount or directed the complainant to hand over the same to accused No. 3. He further contended that on 15.09.2021 itself, the petitioner-Special LAO-I of Chikkaballapur jurisdiction has been transferred and he was