Court rules that mere demand without acceptance does not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court quashed the First Information Report (FIR) against Sub-Inspector Prabhugowda Patil, accused of demanding a bribe of Rs. 1,00,000. The court, presided over by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, determined that both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential to establish an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case was registered as Crime No.45 of 2019 by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).
The complaint, lodged by one of the respondents, accused Patil of demanding a bribe to file a 'B' report in a separate case. However, the court found no evidence of acceptance of the alleged bribe. The judgment emphasized that mere allegations of demand without evidence of acceptance do not fulfill the criteria for corruption under the Act.
The court referred to several precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgments in B. Jayaraj, N. Vijayakumar, and Neeraj Dutta, which underscore that both demand and acceptance must be proven for such charges. The High Court noted that no trap was laid, nor was any bribe money recovered from Patil, further weakening the prosecution's case.
Justice Nagaprasanna highlighted that the FIR lacked prima facie evidence to justify the continuation of proceedings, aligning with the Supreme Court's guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal regarding quashing FIRs lacking substantive evidence. The decision aims to prevent the misuse of legal processes and protect individuals from baseless accusations.
The court's ruling is expected to have implications for similar cases, reaffirming the necessity of concrete evidence in corruption charges. The quashing of the FIR against Sub-Inspector Patil underscores the judiciary's role in upholding legal standards and preventing abuse of process.
Bottom Line:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are sine qua non for an offence under Section 7 of the Act. Mere demand without acceptance or acceptance without demand does not constitute an offence under Section 7.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 7, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482
Prabhugowda Patil v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc id # 2857209
