- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2985 CRL.P No. 102676 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102676 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI. MAHANTESH S/O. VIRUPAKSHAPPA NIDASANUR, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. FDA, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, BAGALKOTE, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH LOKAYUKTA P.S BAGALKOTE, BAGALKOTE-587101, TQ AND DIST. BAGALKOTE, RPTD BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, SPP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS, 2023 (U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.) SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED IN BGK.ACB.CRIME NO.05/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 7(a) 7A OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND ALL PROCEEDINGS AROSING THERE FROM WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONER/ACCUSED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.20 16:40:22 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2985 CRL.P No. 102676 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The registration of the FIR for offences punishable under Sections 7(a) and 7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter, “the Act”), is challenged in this petition. 2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, employed as a First Division Assistant in the District and Family Health Welfare Department, Bagalkote, was found carrying a gratification amount of Rs. 5,08,000/–. It is further contended that this money was received for the release of travel allowance bills. The vehicle in which the petitioner was traveling was intercepted, and on inspection, it was discovered that he was carrying the unaccounted money. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even if it is accepted that the petitioner failed to account for the money, such an omission does not constitute an offence under Section 7(A) of the Act, as there is no evidence of both a demand for and an acceptance of gratification. 4. In response, counsel for the respondent-Lokayukta contends that the petitioner was found in possession of unaccounted money, which was seized from him. It is alleged that this money was received as gratification from various officers of the Taluka Health and Family Welfare Department for releasing travel allowance bills, thereby constituting an offence under Section 7(A) of the Act. He further argued that the veracity of these allegations - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2985 CRL.P No. 102676 of 2024 requires investigation and that, at this stage, the registration of the FIR should not be interfered with. 5. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both parties have been duly considered. 6. The prosecution alleges that after collecting the gratification amount from the officers, the petitioner was traveling in a car. However, none of the persons who allegedly paid the gratification have filed any complaint with the respondent- Lokayukta. Moreover, the officers of the Taluka Health and Family Welfare Department, in their statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., have categorically stated that they did not pay any gratification for the release of travel allowance bills. Since an offence under Section 7(A) requires both a demand for and an acceptance of gratification, the absence of these elements undermines the prosecution’s case. 7. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner demanded gratification, such conduct would not, by itself, constitute an offence under Section 7(A) of the Act, as held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 105067/2023. 8. With reference to the Apex Court decision in Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), the Court held that the essence of Section 7 of the Act is the presence of both a demand and an acceptance of gratification. The Court clarified that if there is a demand without acceptance, or acceptance without a demand, it would not constitute an offence under Section 7. Moreover, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2985 CRL.P No. 102676 of 2024 alleged act must pertain to the performance or non-performance of a public duty, involving pending work assigned to the public servant against whom the allegation is made. 9. In the absence of any substantial evidence to prove that the petitioner both demanded and accepted gratification, the continuation of the investigation does not serve the interests of justice. Consequently, as the essential elements required to constitute an offence under Section 7(A) of the Act are conspicuously absent, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in First Information Report, Crime No. 05/2021, registered by the respondent-Lokayukta Police, Bagalkot, are hereby quashed. 10. The Respondent - Lokayukta to release the seized amount to the petitioner within one week from the date of receiving this order. AC Ct:vh List No.: 3 Sl No.: 23 Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE