The judgment establishes the principle that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are crucial for proving the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, and the necessity of valid sanction for prosecution.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India and read with 482 of Cr.P.C to quash order dtd. 27/4/2022 in Spcl.C.C.No.150/2020 in Crime No.18/2016 of Anti-Corruption Bureau passed by XXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and special judge (P.C. Act) at Bangalore for offence punishable under Ss. 13(1)(d), 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

2. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and special court for respondent.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one Shylaja N.K, an accounts Manager of Nexys Controls Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru filed complaint to the Lokayuktha alleging that the company claimed refund of Rs.6,03,917.00 as excess tax amount from the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes LVO-60. An application came to be filed, at that time the accused No.1 the Assistant Commissioner, demanded 10% of the amount of Rs.60,000.00 as bribe for refund that on 4/11/2016 the accused No.1 said to have had telephonic conversation with this petitioner and he has agreed to receive Rs.30,000.00 each for accused No.1 and for the petitioner by way of two separate envelops. The complainant was not willing to pay bribe and lodged complaint and after lodging the complaint the trap was set up. The amount has been sent to accused No.1 in two envelops, while accepting the same by accused No.1 the Lokayuktha trapped accused No.1 and seized the cash. After registering the case, the police charge sheeted against the accused Nos.1 and 2 and this petitioner being accused No.2 challenged the charge sheet before this court by way of this writ petition.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended mainly on three grounds (1) That there is no demand or acceptance of bribe by this petitioner, (2) there is no work pending with him as on the date of demand made by the accused No.1 as on 5/11/2016 as this petitioner already sent back the file on 2/11/2016. There is no conversation between accused Nos.1 and 2 with this petitioner, the telephonic conversation also not produced by the Investigating officer in order to show the accused No.1 contacted accused No.2 and the complainant. (3) It is contended that the State initially not accorded any sanction for filing the charge sheet against this petitioner and subsequently the Investigating Officer sent back the file for according sanction, later, without application of mind the sanctioning authority granted sanction. Therefore, absolutely there is no connecting evidence in the prosecution papers to say this petitioner demanded any bribe and accepted and also any work pending with him. Therefore, the alleged offences would not attract against this petitioner, hence prayed for allowing the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings.

5. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgments of the coordinate bench of this court as well as order passed by this court in Writ Petition No.915/2022 in case of Mr.N.Thejas Kumar Vs State of Karnataka and Anr., in W.P.No.15314/2022 in case of L.Satish Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka By Lokayuktha and Writ Petition No.10027/2022 in the case of Sri.P.Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka and also in another case of Hon'ble Supreme Court (2022) 4 Supreme Court Cases 574.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent has contended that as per the telephonic conversation held in front of the informant the accused No.1 telephoned to the present petitioner and the present petitioner demanded money from the complainant through accused No.1 on 5/11/2016. Subsequently, the amount of Rs.30,000.00 each kept in two envelopes and accused No.1 accepted, at that time trapped, the telephonic conversation clearly reveals there was demand by this petitioner and therefore it is contended there is sufficient materials placed on record to show that demand and acceptance by this petitioner. The accused No.1 agreed to sign th