Karnataka High Court
Credit: DH File Photo
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings against a contract driver with the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (Bescom) on charges of graft.
The Lokayukta police, Bengaluru, had arrested R Murali Krishna, the contract driver, while he was placing a bag containing bribe money in the car boot of his superior, chief general manager of Bescom.
"...he (Murali Krishna) is unnecessarily brought into the frame of the crime, merely because he was present and obeying his superior for placing the bag in the car boot,” Justice M Nagaprasanna observed in his order.
Krishna, the petitioner, had joined Bescom as a contract driver on October 17, 2023.
The complainant, BN Prathap, a Bengaluru-based electrical contractor, had approached ML Nagaraja, Chief General Manager of Bescom, as the file pertaining to converting the tariff from commercial to industrial was not moving for four months.
The complainant approached the Lokayukta, saying that Nagaraja (accused number 1 in the case) had initially demanded a bribe of Rs 10 lakh to forward the report and later scaled it down to Rs 7.5 lakh.
On November 22, 2023, the Lokayukta police laid a trap, and the complainant visited the chief general manager in his office with the bribe amount. The chief general manager asked the complainant to keep the bag on the table and asked his driver to place it in the car. The Lokayukta police caught the driver while he was placing the bag in the car. The petitioner contended that he had joined Bescom around a month earlier and was not aware of the office matters.
On the other hand, the Lokayukta police argued that any person accepting a bribe on behalf of a public servant would also become punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.
Justice Nagaprasanna noted that there is not a word against the driver in the entire complaint. The court further said that Explanation 2 to Section 7, which criminalises acceptance by a third party on behalf of a public servant, cannot be stretched to a breaking point so as to ensnare a contract driver utterly unaware of the sordid transaction.
"The driver, who had admittedly joined a month ago in the office of accused No 1 on a contract basis, is dragged into the web of crime on the circumstances generated by accused No 1. The entire recording is against accused No 1, who has clearly demanded and accepted the bribe. Nothing beyond what is noted in the recording would be necessary to pin down accused No 1. But the same cannot be said to accused No 2, a humble driver who becomes a victim of circumstances of demand and acceptance done by accused No 1,” the court said.