Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer with BESCOM, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the FIR registered against him for an offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case arose from a complaint lodged by a Work Inspector alleging that the petitioner demanded a bribe of ₹3,80,000 to facilitate electricity supply connections for two buildings. It was claimed that the petitioner initially directed the complainant to a contractor who demanded ₹5,00,000, and later the petitioner himself allegedly settled the amount at ₹3,80,000. A trap was laid by the Lokayukta Police, and the tainted money was placed in a plastic cover inside the petitioner’s car, after which the petitioner was arrested. The petitioner contended that there was no proof of demand or acceptance; the work was to be handled by the contractor; nothing was pending before him; the trap was a failed one because there was no demand on the trap day and no physical acceptance; the phenolphthalein test was conducted only on the car seat with no hand wash; and the complainant was a habitual complainant. The prosecution argued that all ingredients of the offence were prima facie satisfied, as the car contained the cash and the trap was laid when the petitioner and complainant were together. The court, after hearing submissions, noted that matters such as the validity of the trap and the hand wash procedure are for trial and cannot be decided at the stage of quashing the FIR. The order was reserved.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7(a) - Demand and Acceptance - Petitioner argued that there was no proof of demand for bribe on the date of trap and no physical acceptance of the tainted money by the petitioner; the prosecution contended that the money was found in the car occupied by the petitioner and the complainant, constituting acceptance; the court reserved its order after hearing both sides (Paras 5-6). B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Investigation Stage - The court observed that the issues raised, such as the validity of the trap and the procedure of hand wash, are matters for trial and cannot be examined in a petition for quashing FIR at the investigation stage (Para 6). C) Corruption - Trap Procedure - Pre-verification and Failed Trap - The petitioner highlighted the absence of pre-verification and the lack of recording of demand in the entrustment mahazar, claiming a failed trap; the court took note of these submissions but did not make a finding (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR in Crime No.3/2024 for offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 should be quashed for lack of proof of demand and acceptance?
Law Points
- demand and acceptance essential for Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act
- proof of demand required
- trap must establish acceptance
- habitual complainant not ground to quash at investigation stage
