Proof of demand and acceptance of bribes is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money without evidence of demand does not establish an offence.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioner/accused No.1 is at the doors of this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.22 of 2024 against the petitioner and others for offences punishable under Section 7 (a) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Facts, in brief, as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:-

The 2^nd respondent is the complainant. A complaint comes to be registered on 18-05-2024 against the petitioner and others alleging that the complainant owned sites in Site Nos. 3 and 10 in Sy.No.38/1A of Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and ward No.40 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Manahagara Palike and a dispute emerged between the neighbours with regard to ownership of sites. The complainant files a suit for injunction and it appears, that the concerned Court grants temporary injunction. A case and counter case comes to registered between the complainant and the neighbouring property owner. The petitioner was working as a Police Sub-Inspector in Byadarahalli Police Station. When the case and counter-case was registered before the Officer in-charge of the Police Station/the petitioner, it is alleged that the petitioner had demanded money for grant of station bail. Based upon the said allegation, a crime comes to be registered in Crime No.22 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 7 (a) and 12 of the Act. Registration of crime has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.B.Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that rival claimants were on loggerheads. Both have registered crimes against each other – a case and a counter case in Crime No.232 of 2024 and Crime No.236 of 2024. Pursuant to registration of a case and counter-case, the SHO who was not the petitioner instructed the petitioner to go ahead with the procedure and grant station bail. It is alleged that the petitioner has demanded Rs. 50,000/- for himself and Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the writer and accordingly, Rs. 5,000/- was paid to the writer. The demand was allegedly recorded in a voice recorder and based upon this information a crime in Crime No.22 of 2024 is registered. The learned senior counsel would further contend that there is no proof of demand and acceptance. There was nothing pending before the petitioner to constitute an offence. This, at best, is a failed trap, as neither the voice recording nor the complaint directly pins the petitioner. It is registered only to wreak vengeance on grant of bail to one of the warring parties. The panchanama also indicates that the voice recorder was turned off at the time of conversation in the police station and the alleged demand of bribe was not by the petitioner nor it was accepted by the petitioner. It was accused No.2 who was caught accepting bribe of Rs. 5,000/-.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri B.B.Patil appearing for the 1^st respondent/Lokayukta would submit that the petitioner was the person who was to grant station bail, as the Station House Officer has instructed the petitioner to register the case and the counter-case. The warring parties were before the civil Court and one of them had secured injunction and the other one was demanding that the Police issue Section 41A Cr.P.C notice. In the wake of issuance of the notice, it is the allegation that the petitioner had demanded Rs. 50,000/- initially and the matter was settled for Rs. 5,000/-. He would admit the amount was recovered from accused No.2 and not from the hands of the petitioner. He would contend that all these matters would be a matter of trial and there cannot be entertainment of a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C at the stage of investigation.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have p