In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against an assistant public prosecutor from Tiptur in a bribery case, firmly stating that the offence lies in the demand and acceptance of an illegal gratification, irrespective of whether the official work was already done.
The Core of the Case: A Forest Officer's Complaint
The case stems from a complaint filed by Range Forest Officer R Nagarajaiah against Assistant Prosecutor Poornima G, who was posted at a court in Tumakuru district's Tiptur. The legal saga began after Nagarajaiah was acquitted in a criminal case related to causing grievous hurt. On February 25, 2019, Poornima submitted a legal opinion stating it was a fit case for the government to file an appeal against the acquittal.
According to the prosecution's case, Nagarajaiah was unaware of this adverse opinion. Subsequently, Poornima allegedly approached Nagarajaiah and others acquitted in the case, demanding Rs 10,000 from each to submit a report stating the case was unfit for appeal. It is alleged that a sum of Rs 20,000 was paid to a third party as part of this deal.
The Legal Trap and Arguments in Court
After the alleged demand, Nagarajaiah approached the Lokayukta police. The anti-corruption wing then laid a trap, catching the accused, including a typist, while further payments were allegedly being made.
In the High Court, Poornima's counsel sought to quash the proceedings, arguing that she never received the money and that the allegation of demand was made only after she had submitted an opinion against the forest officer. The defence claimed Nagarajaiah had used his influence to file a false vendetta-driven complaint. A key legal argument advanced was that proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act could not be initiated for work that was already completed.
Opposing this, the counsel for the state argued that Nagarajaiah was unaware the report was already completed and was contacted solely for illegal monetary gain. They emphasized that under the law, it is immaterial whether the bribe was for work pending or already done.
Court's Firm Ruling: Demand Itself is the Crime
The bench of Justice M I Arun, in its order dated November 21 (made public recently), dismissed the petition to quash the proceedings. The court underscored the fundamental principle of anti-corruption law.
"What is sought to be punished is obtaining or accepting or attempting to obtain the illegal gratification. The result is immaterial," the court observed. It noted the allegation was that the prosecutor hid the fact of the adverse opinion from the forest officer and then tried to obtain a bribe.
"The offence in the instant case is demanding and accepting the bribe. The fact of legal opinion being given against the interest of the petitioner is immaterial," the bench clarified, adding that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.
The High Court concluded that it was for the trial court to decide on the guilt or innocence of the accused and that this was not a fit case for it to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. It also expressly stated that none of its observations should influence the trial court's final verdict.
This ruling reinforces a strict interpretation of corruption laws, focusing on the act of demand rather than the subsequent official action, sending a clear message to public officials.
