The demand and acceptance of bribes must be proven for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, highlighting its critical role in establishing culpability.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Spl. (SVC) No.9/2021.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits qua most of the accused, this court has quashed the proceedings and the petitioner, who is accused No.3, is entitled to the same benefit that is passed qua accused No.1 and others.

4. Learned counsel Sri. Anil Kale appearing for the Lokayukta has filed statement of objections refuting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in seeking dismissal of the petition.

5. This Court in Criminal Petition No.101560/2023 has held has follows:

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Special (SVC) No.9 of 2021 arising out of Crime No.17 of 2019 registered for offences punishable under Sections 7 (a), 7A, 12 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). The petitioner is accused No.1.

2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:-

An anonymous complaint emerges against the functioning of the Sub-Registrar’s office at Gadag. The allegation was that all the staff in the office is in the habit of demanding bribe and, therefore, a request was made to personally visit the Sub-Registrar’s office, look at the truth and initiate proceedings. The complaint was made to the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Anti-Corruption Bureau. Based upon this, a crime is registered in Crime No.17 of 2019, a search warrant was secured and office of the Sub-Registrar, Gadag was searched. What was found, according to the search so conducted, from the hands of the petitioner was allegedly Rs.9390/- and all others who were in the office of the Sub-Registrar at the time of search were either licensed deed writers or private parties who had come to get the documents registered. Based upon the search, alleging that there was demand and acceptance against the staff of the Sub-Registrar’s office and private persons, an investigation is taken up. The investigation leads to filing of charge sheet and filing of charge sheet leads to securing sanction from the hands of the competent authority to prosecute the petitioner as obtaining under Section 19 of the Act. After the sanction being placed before the concerned Court, the concerned Court takes cognizance of the offence and registers Special case No.9 of 2021. It is at that point in time the petitioner knocks at the doors of this Court in Criminal Petition No.100368 of 2022 in which an interim order of stay of further proceedings was granted. The said criminal petition comes to be disposed of by an order of the co-ordinate Bench on 06-07-2023 on the score that the office of Anti Corruption Bureau by then stood abolished by a judicial order and liberty was reserved to file a fresh petition by arraigning the Lokayukta as a party respondent. It is, therefore, the present petition has emerged. This Court, in the light of the earlier interim order subsisting till the disposal of the petition, granted an interim order of stay of all further proceedings in the subject petition as well. Therefore, further proceedings have not taken place in Special case No.9 of 2021 qua the petitioner/accused No.1.

3. Heard Smt G. Bharati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Anil Kale, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that there is no ingredient of demand and acceptance for an allegation under Section 7 or 7A of the Act, be it under un-amended or amended Act. The learned counsel would further submit that an anonymous complaint emerges, a search warrant is taken on that strength and the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gad