<p>Ambarish B Bengaluru, DHNS</p>.<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to stop the investigation in a corruption case involving an assistant engineer of Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (Bescom). Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the status of pending work is not crucial for establishing the demand and acceptance of bribes.</p>.<p>The petition was filed by YHP Yathisha, Assistant Engineer in Field Operations and Maintenance, Bescom, Bengaluru. The complainant, N Chandan Kumar, a work inspector at Sri Chakra Electricals, had filed applications for two power supplies on February 9, 2024, related to buildings in Annapoorneshwari Nagar. It is stated that Yathisha asked the complainant to speak to Satish, a contractor. On February 26, 2024, Satish demanded Rs 5 lakh for the work.</p>.No bike taxis in Karnataka from June 16 as HC declines to stay order.<p>After negotiations, the amount was scaled down to Rs 3.8 lakh. The complainant had recorded the demand on his mobile phone. The Lokayukta police carried out the trap when the money, placed in a cover marked ‘Venkatesh Sweet Meat Stall’, was recovered from the vehicle of Yathisha.</p>.<p>Challenging the proceedings, the petitioner claimed that there is insufficient evidence of demand and acceptance. It was further contended that no work related to the complainant was pending before Yathisha.</p>.<p>After perusing the material, the court noted that there is clear documentation of the demand, including the pre-trap arrangements as well as the recovery of Rs 3.8 lakh. “If the petitioner had not demanded money, it is incomprehensible as to why the complainant would come to Venkateshwara Sweetmeat Stall with the money unless directed by the petitioner. Therefore, there is prima facie demand in the case at hand. Recovery is made from the car. The complainant was holding the cash. The recovery was made at the time when the petitioner was accepting the cash. The Phenolphthalein test turned the hands of the petitioner to pink. The swab was taken at the spot from the hands. All these would prima facie lead to an inference that the petitioner has demanded and accepted the bribe. At the time of acceptance, he was caught,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.</p>.<p>The court further stated that when prima facie proof exists of demand and acceptance, and there is recovery of money, the subject crime cannot be said to have emerged from a failed trap. “Whether work is pending or not is immaterial, as there is no law that infers demand and acceptance only if the work is pending. This has now been clarified by the Supreme Court in the 7-Judge Bench judgment in the Sita Soren case,” the court said.</p>
<p>Ambarish B Bengaluru, DHNS</p>.<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to stop the investigation in a corruption case involving an assistant engineer of Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (Bescom). Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the status of pending work is not crucial for establishing the demand and acceptance of bribes.</p>.<p>The petition was filed by YHP Yathisha, Assistant Engineer in Field Operations and Maintenance, Bescom, Bengaluru. The complainant, N Chandan Kumar, a work inspector at Sri Chakra Electricals, had filed applications for two power supplies on February 9, 2024, related to buildings in Annapoorneshwari Nagar. It is stated that Yathisha asked the complainant to speak to Satish, a contractor. On February 26, 2024, Satish demanded Rs 5 lakh for the work.</p>.No bike taxis in Karnataka from June 16 as HC declines to stay order.<p>After negotiations, the amount was scaled down to Rs 3.8 lakh. The complainant had recorded the demand on his mobile phone. The Lokayukta police carried out the trap when the money, placed in a cover marked ‘Venkatesh Sweet Meat Stall’, was recovered from the vehicle of Yathisha.</p>.<p>Challenging the proceedings, the petitioner claimed that there is insufficient evidence of demand and acceptance. It was further contended that no work related to the complainant was pending before Yathisha.</p>.<p>After perusing the material, the court noted that there is clear documentation of the demand, including the pre-trap arrangements as well as the recovery of Rs 3.8 lakh. “If the petitioner had not demanded money, it is incomprehensible as to why the complainant would come to Venkateshwara Sweetmeat Stall with the money unless directed by the petitioner. Therefore, there is prima facie demand in the case at hand. Recovery is made from the car. The complainant was holding the cash. The recovery was made at the time when the petitioner was accepting the cash. The Phenolphthalein test turned the hands of the petitioner to pink. The swab was taken at the spot from the hands. All these would prima facie lead to an inference that the petitioner has demanded and accepted the bribe. At the time of acceptance, he was caught,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.</p>.<p>The court further stated that when prima facie proof exists of demand and acceptance, and there is recovery of money, the subject crime cannot be said to have emerged from a failed trap. “Whether work is pending or not is immaterial, as there is no law that infers demand and acceptance only if the work is pending. This has now been clarified by the Supreme Court in the 7-Judge Bench judgment in the Sita Soren case,” the court said.</p>