The Karnataka High Court has delivered a significant ruling, refusing to quash legal proceedings initiated by Lokayukta police against an assistant public prosecutor accused of demanding bribes. The court underscored a crucial legal principle: the act of demanding or accepting illegal gratification itself constitutes an offence under anti-corruption laws, irrespective of whether the official work was completed or favoured the bribe-giver.
The Core Allegations and the Defence
The case centres on Poornima G, who was serving as the assistant public prosecutor at the Tiptur Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) court. The Lokayukta police registered a case based on a complaint filed by R Nagarajaiah, a range forest officer from Chikkanayakanahalli in Tumakuru district. Nagarajaiah had been acquitted in a criminal case, and the file was later sent to Poornima for her legal opinion on whether the government should appeal the acquittal.
According to the prosecution, Poornima, despite having already recommended filing an appeal against Nagarajaiah's acquittal—an opinion adverse to him—allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs 10,000 each from four accused, including Nagarajaiah. She reportedly promised a favourable opinion in return. The prosecution claims that Narasimha Murthy, acting on Poornima's behalf, was caught by Lokayukta police while Rs 20,000 of the total bribe amount was being transferred to his bank account.
Challenging the case, Poornima's legal team argued a key technical point. They stated she had given the adverse opinion on February 25, 2019, while the alleged bribe demand was made on March 1, 2019, and the trap was laid on April 29, 2019. Her defence contended that since the bribe pertained to work already completed and was against the complainant's interest, it did not fall under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Court's Interpretation of Corruption Law
Justice MI Arun, presiding over the case, rejected this defence. The court firmly noted that the language of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act makes no distinction based on the outcome of the work. The offence is complete with the demand or acceptance of the gratification.
"The section does not distinguish between work done in favour of the bribe-giver or against him," Justice Arun observed. "What was sought to be punished was obtaining, accepting or attempting to obtain the illegal gratification, and the result was immaterial."
The court accepted the prosecution's narrative that the petitioner had concealed from the complainant the fact that she had already submitted an opinion against his interest. She then allegedly misled him into believing she was yet to give her opinion and would provide a favourable one upon receiving the bribe. Therefore, the core offence was the demand and attempted acceptance of the bribe.
Implications and Next Steps
This ruling reinforces a strict interpretation of anti-corruption statutes, focusing on the intent and act of corruption rather than its practical consequence. It serves as a stern reminder to public officials about the severe legal ramifications of engaging in such practices.
With the High Court dismissing the petition, the proceedings before the trial court against Poornima, Narasimha Murthy, and a typist will continue. Justice Arun explicitly directed that the trial court must decide the case on its own merits, without being influenced by the observations made in this high court order. The legal process will now move forward to examine the evidence and determine guilt or innocence in this bribery case that has drawn attention to conduct within the judicial administration.
