Karnataka High Court refuses to quash bribery case against assistant public prosecutor

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Monday refused to quash proceedings against an assistant public prosecutor in connection with a bribery case registered by the Lokayukta police.

Justice MI Arun observed that the explanation to Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act clarifies that demanding and accepting gratification constitutes an offence irrespective of whether the work has been done or not.  

Petitioner Poornima G, who worked as an assistant public prosecutor at the Tiptur JMFC court, challenged the proceedings pending on a complaint filed by R Nagarajaiah, range forest officer at Chikkanayakanahalli in Tumakuru district.

The complainant was acquitted in a case, while the file was before Poornima for her legal opinion.

It was alleged that Poornima demanded Rs 10,000 each from four accused, including Nagarajaiah, for a favourable legal opinion as to whether it is a fit case for appeal.

The Lokayukta police had caught Narasimha Murthy, who allegedly acted on behalf of Poornima, while receiving Rs 20,000 in bribe amount through his account.

The petitioner contended that as per the case of the prosecution, the demand was first raised on March 1, 2019, and the trap was laid on April 29, 2019, whereas, she had already filed an unfavourable opinion against the complainant on February 25, 2019.

It was submitted that the question of initiating proceedings for an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act does not arise since the allegation is bribery for a work that had already been completed against the interest of the complainant.

On the other hand, the Lokayukta and the complainant submitted that the trial in the case is at its end and that 11 witnesses have already been examined, while only the Investigating Officer is required to be cross-examined.

It was also submitted that the complainant was not aware that the legal opinion had already been filed.

Justice Arun noted that clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 7 make it clear that the gratification may be towards work already done or yet to be done, and that explanation 1 further clarifies that irrespective of whether the work was done or not, demanding and accepting the gratification constituted an offence.

"The Section does not distinguish between the work done in favour of the bribe-giver or done against him. What is sought to be punished is obtaining or accepting or attempting to obtain the illegal gratification. The result is immaterial. The allegation in the instant case is that the petitioner hid from the second respondent the fact of submitting an opinion adverse to his interest and then tried to obtain a bribe by misleading the second respondent that she is yet to give the opinion and upon him and others paying the bribe, she would give a favourable opinion,” Justice Arun said.

The court further said, “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. No doubt, the onus of proving the same lies upon the prosecution.”