Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish corruption charges under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, with mere return of money not sufficient without established demand.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court calling in question registration of crime in Crime No.65 of 2022 (original Crime No.4 of 2022) for offences punishable under Sections 7 (a) and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

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

The petitioner who is a public servant was at the relevant point of time working as Special Land Acquisition Officer-II of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (‘KIADB’ for short) and is presently working as Joint Director of Municipal Administration. On 21-09-2022, the 2^nd respondent/complainant registers a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the 1^st respondent/Karnataka Lokayukta upon which a crime is registered in Crime No.4 of 2022. The allegation by the complainant is that the complainant is the resident in No.17, 1^st Main, 10^th ‘A’ Cross, Laggare Main Road, Bangalore and that an ancient Shri Dinne Duggalamma Temple is situated in Laggare Village. The temple was built in the land bearing Sy.No.147 measuring 30 guntas by a trust by name ‘Shri Dinne Duggalamma Temple Development Trust’ after collecting contributions from various donors and others. For obtaining RTC in respect of the property belonging to the temple, the 2^nd respondent/complainant had approached the concerned case worker who had informed the complainant to approach the office of the KIADB and obtain no objection from them. The complainant is said to have appeared before the KIADB office and sought to submit an application for the purpose of issuance of NOC. He met the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioner. The Officer assured that he would get the job done, but in spite of many visits NOC was not issued. It is alleged that the villagers had entrusted responsibility of approaching the office for obtaining the NOC and other nuances for the purpose of issuance of khatha to the complainant.

3. It is alleged that the petitioner and several other officers had demanded a payment of Rs. 4,00,000/- through accused No.2 who is working as Surveyor in the same office and had threatened the complainant in the event the amount demanded would not be paid, the land would be taken over by Government. Against the said demand, it is the allegation that Rs. 2.5 lakhs was agreed to be paid immediately and in terms of the assurance the complainant had arranged Rs. 2.5 lakhs by collecting it from people who are known to him and on the direction of the petitioner it was paid to accused No.3 Somanna. In spite of the payment of the said amount, the work relating to the complainant was not done. Therefore, the complainant registers a complaint before the Special Deputy Commissioner of the KIADB on 07-07-2022 and two days thereafter the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioner kept the NOC ready and was pressurizing the complainant to take back the complaint that he had made before the Special Deputy Commissioner of the KIADB. The complainant, as observed hereinabove, registers a complaint on all the aforesaid facts which becomes a crime in Crime No.65 of 2022. After registration of the complaint, a pre-trap mahazar was drawn, panch witnesses were secured and a trap was laid upon the petitioner, accused No.2 and other persons. Trap is laid upon the petitioner at the time when he was returning the amount of Rs. 3/- lakhs. Based upon registration of crime in Crime No.65 of 2022, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.

4. Heard Sri Sandesh J.Chout