Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This petition is filed by accused No.1 seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No.06/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered by the respondent/Lokayukta.

2. The gist of the complaint, which culminated in registration of the present crime, is that the petitioner along with other co-accused were deliberately delaying the approval process of a single plot layout and, in that context, were allegedly demanding a bribe of Rs.30,000/- for facilitating the said work. Acting upon directions, the NC: 2025:KHC:38911 HC-KAR Mandya Lokayukta Police registered Crime No.06/2025 against the petitioner and other accused, including the Assistant Director of Land Records (ADLR). Pursuant thereto, a trap was conducted on 22.07.2025 in the office of the Assistant Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, whereafter the petitioner and two others were taken into custody and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner now stands accused of an offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 AIR 1960 SC 866 NC: 2025:KHC:38911 HC-KAR

5. Learned Senior Counsel, reiterating the above grounds, submits that there is no material to indicate that the petitioner either demanded or accepted any gratification. Particularly reliance is placed on the recorded conversations between the complainant and the petitioner, which, it is asserted, do not establish any demand. Since demand and acceptance are the sine qua non for attracting Section 7(a) of the Act, absence of such material ought to enure to the petitioner's benefit. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner had already discharged his official obligations and, once the matter was forwarded to the ADLR for land survey pre- condition for approval of single-plot layouts, nothing remained pending at the petitioner's end. Notwithstanding this, the petitioner is sought to be falsely implicated although the file itself was pending with the ADLR for more than seven months.

9. The submission of the petitioner that immediately upon receipt of the application seeking single plot approval, he referred the matter to the ADLR for conducting a survey and forwarding the report for further action cannot be accepted at this stage. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the telephonic conversations between the complainant and the petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.1, prima facie indicate a case warranting investigation. Whether the 2025 INSC 320 NC: 2025:KHC:38911 HC-KAR alleged demand for gratification was made jointly by the petitioner and accused No.2, or whether the demand made by accused No.2 was on behalf of the petitioner, is a matter that can only be determined through a detailed investigation.

10. A perusal of the call records placed on record shows that there were communications between the petitioner/accused No.1 and the complainant. Although the call records are in the vernacular language, they provide sufficient prima facie indication of involvement, warranting further investigation.

11. Learned Special Counsel has correctly pointed out that the investigation is still ongoing and crucial materials, including the FSL report, are awaited. On careful consideration of the complaint and the materials furnished by the petitioner himself, this Court is of the considered view that the investigation is still at a nascent stage. The offences alleged under the Prevention of NC: 2025:KHC:38911 HC-KAR Corruption Act are serious in nature. Whether the petitioner/accused No.1 actively participated in demanding the bribe, or merely processed the file and had no role once it was forwarded to the ADLR, is a matter that requires thorough investigation.