Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential to establish offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient for conviction.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioner/accused is at the doors of this Court calling in question registration of crime in Crime No.5 of 2024 for offences punishable under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short).

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

It is the case of the prosecution that on 08-07-2024 the 2^nd respondent/complainant registers a complaint before the 1^st respondent/Karnataka Lokayukta alleging that the complainant supplied materials for water supply works of Harihara Municipal Council and has been doing this for several years. As a matter of norm, the petitioner had asked the 2^nd respondent to supply materials without calling for tender on the pretext of subsistence of general elections to the Parliament. Therefore, it is the case of the complainant that he has supplied materials worth Rs. 25 to Rs. 30 lakhs. For generation and clearance of bills of Rs. 25 to Rs. 30 lakhs the petitioner is said to have demanded Rs. 2/- lakhs. On 07-07-2024, the complainant is said to have paid an amount of Rs. 1/- lakh and is said to have paid the remaining amount on the next day i.e., on 08-07- 2024. After the payment, the complainant registers a complaint with the 1^st respondent Lokayukta alleging that the petitioner has demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 2/- lakhs for generation and clearance of the bills of Rs. 30/- lakhs. Based on the said complaint, a crime comes to be registered against the petitioner and others in Crime No.5 of 2024. Thereafter a pre-trap mahazar was drawn and the 1^st respondent Police laid trap in the house of the petitioner and in the presence of panchas 400 notes of Rs. 500/- each was recovered from the house of the petitioner which was allegedly kept on the tea table of the house. The total amount tallied with the allegation of demand and acceptance of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Panchanama was drawn in the presence of panchas and recovery of the amount was placed as a PF. This becomes the fulcrum of the report placed before the concerned Court i.e., the Court of Session. On registration of crime and conduct of search, the petitioner is before 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 Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that there is no proof of demand and acceptance for constituting an offence under Section 7 of the Act; proof of demand must be at the spot/time of the trap, as it is a necessary ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Act. The trap that is laid in the case at hand is a failed trap, as nothing is recovered from the hands of the petitioner. The trap laying Officer has not ascertained the alleged demand prior to initiating trap proceedings. Trap is laid at the house of the petitioner and money was recovered from the table in the house of the petitioner. The Phenolphthalein test conducted from the swab taken from the table where the money was kept, no hand wash is done with sodium bicarbonate as is necessary in law. There was no work pending with the petitioner. To buttress the submission on the aforesaid grounds, the learned senior counsel places reliance upon plethora of judgments of the Apex Court and that of this Court.

5. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 would take this Court through the statement of obj