The offense of bribery under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is established through demand and acceptance, regardless of whether the work is completed or the interest of the bribe giver.

ORDER :

M.I. ARUN, J.

1. The criminal petition is filed with the following prayers:-

"i. Set aside the entire proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.41/2021 pending on the file of learned 2^nd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 7 (a) and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018.

ii. Pass such other orders/directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

2. The second respondent - complainant was serving as a Range Forest Officer and he was charged with an offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After trial, he along with a few others, were acquitted.

3. The petitioner was posted as a Public Prosecutor for the Court that acquitted the second respondent - complainant. After assuming charge, the petitioner was required to give an opinion on whether the case in which the second respondent was acquitted is a fit case for appeal or not. She has given an opinion on 25.02.2019 stating that it is a fit case for appeal.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the second respondent - complainant was not aware about the petitioner having already given an opinion on 25.02.2019 and she called the second respondent in this regard and he approached the petitioner. At that time, the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- each from four persons including the second respondent herein for submitting a favourable report and to recommend that the case is not fit for appeal. Thereafter, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was transferred to the account of a third party at the behest of the petitioner herein. Subsequently, the second respondent approached the first respondent and registered a complaint against the petitioner and a trap was laid and the second respondent was sent to meet the petitioner along with the shadow witnesses. When they approached the petitioner, she in turn asked them to meet one Typist, who is accused No.2 in Spl.Case No.41/2021. The said Typist in turn directed them to pay the money to one Narasimha Murthy and the second respondent has paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the said Narasimha Murthy. At that time, the Officers of the first respondent caught the said Narasimha Murthy and both the accused including the petitioner herein. Thereafter, Special Case No.41/2021 came to be filed and the trial has commenced against the petitioner and the other accused. Presently, the trial is at its fag end and the counsel for the first respondent submits that eleven witnesses have already been examined on the side of the prosecution and only the Investigating Officer is required to be cross-examined. At this stage, this Court, by its order dated 25.09.2023, granted an interim order and the case has fallen into a limbo.

5. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner never received the alleged amount. It is further submitted that an unfavourable opinion against the complainant has already been submitted on 25.02.2019 and according to the case of the prosecution the demand was first raised on 01.03.2019, and the trap was laid on 29.04.2019. It is submitted that as the petitioner had submitted an unfavourable opinion against the interest of second respondent, out of vendetta, he has made a false complaint against the petitioner herein and by utilizing his official position and the influence that he has over the Authorities concerned, the second respondent laid a trap against the petitioner, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. On the said gr