Sri Ravi S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2025CRL.P/11430/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.P No.11430/2022, High Court of Karnataka (J.M. Khazi J.), decided 16.07.2025 [NC: 2025:KHC:27150] - S.482 Cr.P.C. quashing plea by accused No.2 (police Head Constable) against Lokayukta FIR Cr.No.66/2022 u/s 7(a) PC Act rejected; failed trap held no bar where demand provable by recordings and seizures; Neeraj Dutta applied, Devindra Kumar Bansal and M.Chidananda Rao relied on; Manjunath, Ramesh K.T and P.Manjunath doubted/not followed after SC remand in Thippeswamy B.M.

What did the court decide?

Failure of the trap and the bait money not actually reaching the hands of accused No.1 is not a ground for seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, since the prosecution can lead other evidence, including testimony of the complainant, to prove the demand made by the accused. ¶15

Sri Ravi S Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶192

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner (accused No.2), a police Head Constable, in Cr.No.66/2022 for offences punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the trap was unsuccessful and continuation would amount to abuse of process of the Court.

¶8

Court's answer

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Although the trap failed because the accused grew suspicious and did not receive the tainted notes, prima facie material exists against the accused persons including the petitioner: conversations were secretly recorded on a micro tape recorder concealed in Santhosh Kumar's belt (and via WhatsApp calls), showing consistent threats to implicate the family members of Prakash H.N unless bribe was paid, and Rs.50,000/- received by the petitioner from Santhosh Kumar was seized from his house through a mahazar.

¶12

Key takeaways

This Court holds that there is sufficient material to proceed against the accused persons including the petitioner; this is not a case for granting relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and accordingly the petition fails and is rejected.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (J.M. Khazi J., 16.07.2025) rejects a S.482 Cr.P.C. petition by Ravi S., Head Constable (accused No.2), seeking quashing of the complaint/FIR in Cr.No.66/2022 (29.09.2022, Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Bengaluru) for offences punishable under S.7(a) PC Act, 1988, pending before XXIII Addl. City Civil & Special Judge (CCH-24), Bengaluru. Complaint alleges that during investigation of Cr.No.60/2022 (Chikkajala P.S.), Circle Inspector Praveen (accused No.1) and the petitioner demanded/accepted bribes (Rs.3,20,000/- demanded; petitioner's statement admitting receipt of Rs.3,50,000/-, of which Rs.3,00,000/- went to accused No.1; Rs.50,000/- seized from his house). A trap with Rs.2,50,000/- entrustment failed as the accused turned suspicious; however, conversations were covertly recorded (recorder concealed in belt; WhatsApp calls) evidencing threats to implicate Prakash H.N.'s family. Held: failure of the trap/non-receipt of bait money is no ground for quashing; demand and acceptance can be proved by other evidence including the complainant's testimony (applying Neeraj Dutta (2023) 4 SCC 731; relying on Devindra Kumar Bansal 2025 SCC OnLine SC 488 — mere solicitation itself an offence under S.7; M.Chidananda Rao 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 5029 — no evidence-dissection at 482 stage). Petitioner's authorities (P.Manjunath; Manjunath; Ramesh K.T) discounted as the Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.2044/2025 (SLP (Crl) 9851/2024) set aside the underlying W.P.No.15644/2022 (Thippeswamy B.M) order and remanded. Petition rejected; Registry to send copy to trial Court.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11430 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI RAVI S S/O LATE SANAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/A NO.34, NARAYANAPPA LAYOUT T B CIRCLE, DODDABALLAPURA-561203

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY VIVEK SUBBA REDDY, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI. SUBBA REDDY K N, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶14

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

BANGALORE-560066

¶18

SRI DEVARAJ H N S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS HOUSE NUMBER NIL, HOSAPETE HULIYURUDURGA HOBLI

¶19

KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR-572123

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. B B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR LOKAYUKTHA V/O DATED: 02.11.2023 FOR R1; SRI.B.SIDDESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT AND FIR REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, BENGALURU IN CR.NO.66/2022 DATED 29.09.2022 BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 7(a) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH-24) AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO ANNEXURE-A AND B.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATION ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.2 has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in Cr.66/2022 of Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶29

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

In support of the petition, petitioner/accused

¶33

No.2 who is working as Head constable in police department has contended that he is innocent of the offence alleged and not committed the offence as narrated in the complaint. He is a law abiding citizen having no criminal antecedents.

¶34

3.1 The entire allegations made in the complaint

¶35

does not disclose any offence. Without any iota of evidence, he is being prosecuted. The trap mahazar indicate that the trap laid was unsuccessful. Hence, the complaint is nothing but a malicious prosecution. Complainant has clearly made a plan to remove the investigating officer from the investigation of Cr.No.60/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 474 IPC. Continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence, the petition.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for

¶40

petitioner has relied upon the following decisions

¶41

(i) Sri.P.Manjunath Vs. State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police ( P.Manjunath )¹

¶42

(ii) Sri.Manjunath Vs. State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police ( Manjunath )²

¶43

(iii) Sri.Ramesh K.T Vs. State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police ( Ramesh K.T )³

¶44

On the other hand learned Special Public

¶45

Prosecutor representing respondent No.1 - Lokayukta Police would submit that complainant/respondent No.2 filed a complaint with Lokayukta Police to the effect that his daughter Kavana is given in marriage to one Prakash H.N. Kavana is residing with her husband and his parents

¶46

Chikkanarasimhaiah, Sarojamma and their daughter. However, on 24.06.2022, case in Cr.No.60/2022 of Chikkajala P.S came to be registered against Prakash H.N, Narayanaswamy, H.D.Patil and others. On 23.06.2022, Prakash H.N. was summoned by Police Inspector Praveen

¶47

1 W.P.No.10027/2022 (GM-RES) Dt: 16.11.2022

¶48

2 Crl.P.No.504/2023 Dt: 26.02.2024

¶49

3 W.P.No.10799/2023 Dt: 26.02.2024

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

and informed that a complaint is registered against him on

¶54

the allegations that he has taken money to get employment and in order not to register case against him, he should pay Rs.25 lakhs. When he did not agree, he was kept in illegal custody for one day and on 24.06.2022, case was registered against him. He was also taken to police custody for 10 days.

¶55

5.1 He would further submit that during this period, he was repeatedly told that as a contractor he has earned Crores of rupees and if he fails to pay Rs.25 lakhs, his parents, wife, parents-in-law, brother-in-law would also be implicated. When he did not agree, the Police Inspector took complainant's son Kumar Bhuvan, who is studying in B.Com at Veeranna Gowda College of Maddur, Mandya District to the police station and kept in illegal custody and

¶56

again put forth his demand. When Prakash H.N, did not heed to their demand, on 03.07.2022, Kumar Bhuvan was shown as arrested and sent to jail, saying that it is only a

¶57

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

sample and all the members of his family would be arrested. The Police Inspector also gave threat to the complainant that he would be implicated in Ulsoor Gate P.S case and accordingly, on 06.07.2022, Cr.No.167/2022

¶60

is registered for the same offence and parents of Prakash H.N were summoned and after keeping them for one day, they were sent back.

¶61

5.2 It is further alleged that after Prakash H.N secured bail and came out of the jail, the Police Inspector Praveen, issued notice to him and his parents to attend the police station. In the said case, complainant and his wife have secured anticipatory bail on 29.08.2022 and appeared before the police station along with Chikkanarasimhaiah and Santhosh Kumar - a friend of Prakash H.N. When accused No.2 Ravi took Chikkanarasimhaiah and Santhosh Kumar aside, accused No.1 Praveen called accused No.2 Ravi through watsapp.

¶62

In turn Ravi switched on the loud speaker and they heard

¶63

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

accused No.1 Praveen directing accused No.2 Ravi to get Rs.3,20,000/- for accused No.1 and he may take whatever amount he want. The advocate, who accompanied them reprimanded accused No.1 Praveen.

¶66

5.3 Once again, accused No.1 Praveen gave threat of implicating all the family members and that he would not defreeze the accounts and demanded Rs.3,20,000/-. In turn accused No.2 Ravi demanded Rs.3,00,000/- for accused No.1 Praveen, Rs.50,000/- for him, Rs.20,000/each for 2 writers. Accused No.2 Ravi also advised complainant not to disclose the fact that he is getting Rs.50,000/- to the inspector i.e., accused No.1 Praveen and on 29.08.2022 itself, he collected Rs.50,000/- from the complainant. Later he went on pressurizing complainant to pay the money to accused No.1 Praveen, by making calls from his cell phone to the cell phone of Santhosh Kumar through watsapp.

¶67

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

5.4 It is further alleged that on 05.09.2022,

¶70

complainant arranged for Rs.3,00,000/- and informed accused No.1 Praveen. As directed by him, complainant gave Rs.3,00,000/- to accused No.2 Ravi. He also forcibly collected Rs.5,000/- to be given to the case worker. Despite the same, on 12.09.2022, again accused No.1 Praveen gave notice to Prakash H.N and his parents and directed to appear at the police station. When Prakash H.N, called accused No.2 Ravi through the cell phone of Santhosh Kumar, he got Santhosh Kumar to come to the police station and informed that accused No.1 Praveen is not agreeing for Rs.3,00,000/- and he should be given additional sum of Rs.2,00,000/- failing which his parents would be arrested.

¶71

5.5 It is further submitted that again on 13.09.2022, accused No.2 Ravi called Santhosh Kumar through watsapp and informed that in order to drop parents of Prakash H.N from the charge sheet, he should be given

¶72

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

additional sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. When bargained, accused No.2 Ravi said that he should be given Rs.1,00,000/- and he would make accused No.1 Praveen agree for Rs.3,00,000/-. He also demanded that case workers are also demanding balance. Accused No.2 Ravi gave cell phone No.9008944792 and instructed to send money through Phone-pe to the said number.

¶76

5.6 It is further alleged that on 14.09.2022, 15.09.2022 and 19.09.2022, accused No.2 Ravi made watsapp call to Santhosh Kumar and again placed the demand for payment of bribe failing which all of them would be issued with notices. On 23.09.2022, Santhosh Kumar went to meet accused No.1 Praveen. Before allowing him inside the chamber, he was thoroughly checked and all the electronic devices were kept outside. However, Santhosh Kumar had concealed a pen-drive audio recorder inside portion of his belt and the conversation between them was recorded. He was directed

¶77

10 -

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

to meet accused No.2 Ravi, who demanded Rs.2,00,000/for accused No.1 Praveen and Rs.1,00,000/- for himself and also instructed him to keep it secret. Even after that accused No.2 Ravi called Santhosh Kumar through watsapp and demanded Rs.10,000/- to be sent to cell phone No.9008944792 and remaining Rs.15,000/-. Accordingly, Rs.10,000/was sent to cell phone No.9008944792. In this way, the accused persons have demanded and accepted bribe by making calls through watsapp. Since they are unable to arrange for further bribe amount, complaint is being given.

¶81

5.7 A detailed entrustment mahazar was drawn

¶82

noting the numbers of the currency for a total sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and trap was laid. It appears the accused persons were developed suspicious and failed to receive the bait money and therefore, the trap failed. However, after the arrest of accused No.2 Ravi, his statement was recorded. A search mahazar was drawn in his house,

¶83

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

during the course of which accused No.2 Ravi has given statement that in all he has received Rs.3,50,000/- from Santhosh Kumar and out of the same, he has handed over Rs.3,00,000/- to accused No.1 Praveen and has kept the remaining Rs.50,000/- in his house. The same was recovered through the said mahazar.

¶86

5.8 Learned Special Public Prosecutor would further submit that though the trap mahazar failed, there is sufficient evidence to prove that the accused persons demanded and received bribe and it is not a fit case for quashing the criminal proceedings and pray to dismiss the petition.

¶87

In support of his arguments, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - Lokayukta has relied upon the following decisions:

¶88

(i) Devindra Kumar Bansal Vs. State of Punjab

¶89

12 -

¶90

NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

( Devindra Kumar Bansal )⁴

¶93

(ii) Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

¶94

( Neeraj Dutta )⁵

¶95

(iii) M.Chidananda Rao Vs. State of Karnataka ( M.Chidananda Rao )⁶

¶96

(iv) Khaleel Ahmed Vs. State of Karnataka

¶97

( Khaleel Ahmed )⁷

¶98

(v) State of Maharashtra Vs. Mohd. Yakub

¶99

( Mohd Yakub )⁸

¶100

(vi) State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Aman Kumar Singh

¶101

( Aman Kumar Singh )⁹

¶102

(vii) State by Karnataka Lokayukta Vs. Thippeswamy B.M ( Thippeswamy B.M )¹⁰

¶103

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶104

Thus, petitioner who is accused No.2 and working

¶105

as Head constable in the police department is seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him on the ground that the trap was unsuccessful and

¶106

4 2025 SCC Online SC 488

¶107

5 (2023) 4 SCC 731

¶108

6 2021 SCC Online Kar 5029

¶109

7 (2015) 16 SCC 350

¶110

8 (1980) 3 SCC 57

¶111

9 (2023) 6 SCC 559

¶112

10 Crl.A.No.2044/2024 [SLP(Crl)No.9851/2024 Dt:16.04.2025

¶113

13 -

¶114

NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

therefore continuation of criminal proceedings would

¶117

amount to abuse of process of the Court.

¶118

On the other hand learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the respondent No.2 Lokayukta would submit that even though the trap was not successful, the investigation conducted till the stage of trap clearly establish a prima facie case against all the accused persons, including the petitioner and it is not a case for quashing the criminal proceedings and pray to dismiss the petition.

¶119

From the material placed on record, it is evident that a case came to be registered against one Prakash H.N, the son-in-law of complainant in Cr.No.60/2022 on the allegations that promising to get employment he has collected Crores of rupees and in order not to file charge sheet against him and also not to implicate other members of his family, accused No.1 who is the Circle Inspector and

¶120

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

was investigating the said case and petitioner/accused No.2 who is working as Head constable, demanded bribe and in fact the investigation so far conducted clearly indicate that already Rs.50,000/- was received by accused No.2 and Rs.3,00,000/- to be paid to accused No.1 and various other sums as noted above.

¶123

Every time the conversation between the complainant, one Santhosh Kumar, a friend of Prakash H.N and accused persons is recorded on micro tape recorder. In fact accused No.1 was very careful when he was speaking to the said Santhosh Kumar and he used to be searched thoroughly before letting into his chamber. The accused persons used to make calls only through watsapp so that it should not be recorded. Despite the accused persons taking precaution in searching the person of Santhosh Kumar, he was able to record the conversation made with him by accused No.1 and petitioner/accused No.2 by concealing a micro tape recorder inside his belt.

¶124

15 -

¶125

NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶126

HC-KAR

¶127

Though the trap was laid, since the accused persons became suspicious, they did not receive the tainted notes and as such the trap failed. However, when the house of petitioner/accused No.2 was searched, Rs.50,000/- received by him from Santhosh Kumar were found and they were seized through mahazar. The transcript of the conversations of accused persons recorded on the micro tape recorder clearly indicate that the accused persons, including the petitioner consistently gave threat to the complainant, his son-in-law Prakash H.N and sent messages through Santhosh Kumar that if they failed to give the bribe, all the family members of Prakash H.N would be implicated by filing the charge sheet against them.

¶128

In trap cases, invariably currency notes would be used as bait money. Since everyone would be possessing some currency, in order to prevent the accused from claiming that the currency notes tendered as bait

¶129

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶130

HC-KAR

¶131

money belongs to him, the serial number of the notes would be noted in the mahazar. As a supporting evidence, the tainted notes would be smeared with phenolphthalein powder and the hands and the shirt or pant pocket or portion of the purse, which come in contact with such notes, on washing with sodium carbonate would give pink colour indicating the fact that the said person has received the bait money.

¶132

Tendering of bait money and its recovery would be a piece of evidence, that would be led by prosecution to prove the allegations against the accused, in addition to the testimony of complainant, shadow witness, the second witness to the entrustment mahazar and also the investigating officer who would follow the complainant and shadow witness and would be present immediately after the accused or any of his accomplice would receive such notes and recover them and immediately record the

¶133

17 -

¶134

NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶135

HC-KAR

¶136

statement of such person that may be given by way of their explanation.

¶137

Hitherto it is noticed that the Government officials more particularly, those who are habitually indulged in taking bribe, more particularly, police officers are very cautious. They are suspicious of the movement of the complainant, especially when he is accompanied by another person. They don't receive the bribe money directly and instruct some other person to receive it. They also check the person of the complainant or others who enter their chambers to prevent them from wearing any electronic gadgets to rule out possibility of recording their conversation or video recording. They are even taking precaution not to make calls over regular phone and making calls over watsapp to prevent recording of their conversation making demand for bribe. In the light of the same, the prosecution may not be able to prove the fact of accused or his accomplice receiving the tainted notes.

¶138

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶139

HC-KAR

¶140

However, it will not prevent the prosecution from leading other evidence, including the testimony of the complainant that there was demand made by the accused to carry out the work entrusted to him, based on which a conviction could be imposed. Therefore, mere fact that the bait money has not actually reached the hands of accused No.1 would not be a ground for seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.

¶141

In fact in Neeraj Dutta , the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed in detail, how the evidence in a trap case is to be appreciated under different circumstances and at para 88 and 90, which reads as follows:

¶142

"88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under.

¶143

88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (il) of the Act.

¶144

19 -

¶145

NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶146

HC-KAR

¶147

88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.

¶148

88.3. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.

¶149

88.4. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:

¶150

(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe-giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.

¶151

(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates

¶152

20 -

¶153

NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶154

HC-KAR

¶155

from the public servant. This is an offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

¶156

(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe-giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

¶157

88.5. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.

¶158

21 -

¶159

NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶160

HC-KAR

¶161

88.6. (f) In the event the complainant turns "hostile", or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.

¶162

88.7. (g) Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

¶163

88.8. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in sub-para 88.5(e), above, as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.

¶164

89. In view of the aforesaid discussion and conclusions, we find that there is no conflict in the three-Judge Bench decisions of this Court in B. Jayaraj and P. Satyanarayana Murthy with the threeJudge Bench decision in M. Narsinga Rao, with regard

¶165

22 -

¶166

NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶167

HC-KAR

¶168

to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for the offences under Sections 7 or 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, when the direct evidence of the complainant or "primary evidence" of the complainant is unavailable owing to his death or any other reason. The f position of law when a complainant or prosecution witness turns "hostile" is also discussed and the observations made above would accordingly apply in light of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that there is no conflict between the judgments in the aforesaid three cases.

¶169

90. Accordingly, the question referred for consideration of this Constitution Bench is answered as under:

¶170

In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution."

¶171

17. In Devindra Kumar Bansal, at para-12, the

¶172

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Section 7 of PC Act speaks of the attempt to obtain a bribe as being in itself an offence. Mere demand or solicitation by a public servant

¶173

23 - NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶174

HC-KAR

¶175

amounts to commission of an offence under Section 7 of PC Act. The word 'attempt' is to imply no more than a mere solicitation, which, again may be made as effectually in implicit or in explicit terms.

¶176

In M.Chidananda Rao , Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that serious allegations of corruption by public servants and in the light of prima facie material interference by the High Court is not called for. It was further held that it is not possible for the High Court to dissect the evidence like a trial Court and hold that the plausible defence of accused has the potential to dislodge the case of the prosecution and second-guess the final outcome of the trial at the stage of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash the proceedings.

¶177

So far as Manjunath and Ramesh K.T, relied upon by the petitioner, in the said decisions, the Coordinate Bench of this Court relied on the order in W.P.No.15644/2022 (GM-RES) Thippeswamy B.M Vs. State

¶178

24 -

¶179

NC: 2025:KHC:27150 CRL.P No. 11430 of 2022

¶180

HC-KAR

¶181

of Karnataka and quashed the criminal proceedings against

¶182

the public servants in question. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.2044/2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl)9851/2024 dated 16.04.2025) has set aside the same and remanded the case for fresh consideration. At para-6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that while passing the said orders, the High Court did not go through all the material and it suffers from lack of proper consideration. It was also a case of failed trap. Therefore, no reliance could be placed on these decisions.

¶183

The order in P.Manjunath, relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶184

Thus, from the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are sufficient material to proceed against the accused persons including the petitioner and this is not a case for granting relief under Section 482

¶185