Proof of demand and acceptance is a sine qua non for establishing an offense under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in Crime No.8/2021 registered by the then Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) now Karnataka Lokayuktha for the offence punishable under Sec. 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'P.C. Act).

2. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Special counsel for the respondent No.1-Lokayuktha.

3. Respondent No.2 served unrepresented.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of respondent No.2, the police registered the FIR, it is alleged by the complainant that the petitioner being Sub-Inspector of Huliyar Police Station, Tumakuru said to be demanded Rs.4, 00, 000.00 for releasing his friend Lokesh on the complaint filed by the Manager of the Muthoot Finance namely Shivakumar. It is alleged that on 30/7/2021, he went to the Huliyar Police Station to enquire about the arrest of his friend Lokesh and for releasing his friend Lokesh as he said to be cheated the Muthoot Finance and the said amount has been spent by him and for that, the petitioner being the Sub-Inspector demanded Rs.10, 00, 000.00 for releasing Lokesh. The complainant informed that that he will pay Rs.1, 00, 000.00 and came back from the police station.

5. Again on 1/8/2021, the said Lokesh telephoned to the complainant and told that at least he should pay Rs.4, 00, 000.00 to the police, otherwise, they will fix him in the criminal case. The complainant met the PSI-the petitioner and he told that he brought only Rs.2, 00, 000.00 and said that he will pay another Rs.2, 00, 000.00 within a week. Then the petitioner informed one Dafedar-Mukthiyar to collect the amount of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 from the complainant. The said conversation was recorded by the complainant then the said Mukthiyar took the complainant to the backside of the police station, received Rs.2, 00, 000.00, then contacted the petitioner through telephone. Then the said Mukthiyar took the complainant towards the fruit stall and he was not ready to receive the money, thereafter a signal was given by the complainant to the police. Thereafter the Mukthiyar brought Lokesh and released him to the complainant. Then on 3/8/2021, one Chethan, the Police Constable telephoned to the Lokesh and demanded Rs.2, 00, 000.00. Therefore, the complainant is not willing to pay remaining Rs.2, 00, 000.00, hence, complaint came to be filed to the ACB police and in turn the police registered the FIR.

6. Subsequently, the Police were trying to trap the petitioner, but trap was failed on 4/8/2021 and again they tried to trap the petitioner on 5/8/2021, the trap was failed and the police took up the investigation which is under challenge.

7. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no demand and acceptance by the petitioner. The trap was failed. When there is no demand and acceptance of bribe, the question of proving the case does not arise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731 has held that the demand and acceptance is sine qua non to attract Sec. 7 of the P.C. Act. Therefore, when there is no trap, the question of filing charge sheet does not arise and hence, prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings. In support of his case, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Neeraj Dutta stated supra and Soundarajan vs. State in Crl.A.No.1592/2022 and the judgement of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Thippeswamy vs. State and Another in W.P.No.15644/2022 (GM-RES).

8. Per contra, Sri B.B.Patil, learned Special counsel appearing for the Lokayuktha has vehemently contended that there was demand made by the petitioner which was recorded in the mobile. The mobile conversation reveals that he has demanded Rs.4, 00, 000.00from the complainant. Even the d