Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

ORDER :

M. Nagaprasanna, J.

The petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court calling in question registration of crime in Crime No.3 of 2024 for offences punishable under Section 7 (a) 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 is a public servant working as an Assistant Engineer, Field Operations and Maintenance, BESCOM, Bangalore. A Work Inspector at Sri Chakra Electricals registers a complaint against the petitioner and several others alleging that two applications on 09-02-2024 had been submitted for the purpose of getting supply of power to the buildings of one Venkatesh and one Ajay Kumar in Sy.Nos. 61 and 61/4 of Annapoorneshwari Nagar, Kengeri Hobli. No action was taken in respect of the applications. The averment in the petition is that on 22-02-2024, the complainant calls up the petitioner/accused No.1 to enquire about the applications regarding supply of power. The complainant is said to have met the petitioner also. The petitioner is said to have informed the complainant that one Sri Satish, accused No.2 who is a contractor would help the complainant in getting the work done and asks him to speak to accused No.2 directly. Accused No.2 is said to have been contacted by the complainant on 26-02-2024 who assures that the work would be done with regard to the supply of power, if an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is paid towards all the works till the supply of power to the buildings. The complainant then is said to have called up the petitioner for reduction of the amount which the petitioner is said to have informed the complainant to speak to accused No.2 itself. It is then the complainant allegedly meets the petitioner at Vaishnavi Palace Hotel and the petitioner informs that work would done if Rs.3,80,000/- is paid. This is said to have been recorded in the phone of the complainant. On 03-04-2024 the complainant was asked to meet the petitioner who then directs him to come on 08-04-2024.

3. On 08-04-2024 the complainant registers a complaint which becomes a crime in Crime No.3 of 2024 for offences punishable under Section 7 (a) of the Act. An entrustment mahazar is drawn and the respondent/Police then along with a shadow witness laid a trap upon the petitioner. The trap is conducted by the Lokayukta Police who accompanied the shadow witness. The alleged demanded amount was kept in a plastic cover with the name on it ‘Venkatesh Sweet Meat Stall’. The petitioner had asked the complainant to meet him outside Brigade Meadows besides the KPTCL office at about 2.00 p.m. As per the trap mahazar, the complainant and the shadow witness sit in the back seat of the petitioner’s car and the driver and the petitioner in the front seat. After some time, it is alleged, that the Driver gets out of the car and stood behind the Car. The Police at that point in time surrounded the car and the complainant gets out of the car and signals Lokayukta police team which led to arrest of the petitioner.

4. Heard Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.B. Patil along with Sri Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that there is no proof of demand and acceptance as is necessary for an offence under Section 7 (a) of the Act. The work had to be done by accused No.2 and the petitioner