- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43867 CRL.P No. 9287 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9287 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. RAGHAVENDRANAYAK R S/O RAMANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.100, 2ND FLOOR, 1ST MAIN, DODKALLASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 062 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY K.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA BENGALURU CITY DIVISION REPRESENTED BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001 2. SRI. B.N. SHIVSHANKAR S/O. LATE B. NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RETIRED SECRETARY R/AT NO.1083, 8TH FLOOR, TOWER-1, PRESTIGE BELL, BAGEMANE APARTMENT RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 078 AS PER VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 07.07.2025 RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43867 CRL.P No. 9287 of 2025 (BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (P/H) R2 - SERVED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.05.2025, PASSED IN SPL.CC NO.1022/2025, BY THE XXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BENGALURU CITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioner is seeking to set aside the order taking cognizance and quash the entire proceedings pending before the Special Court registered under Section 7(a) and 7(4) of the P.C. Act. 2. Learned counsel has contended that petitioner is accused No.2 and he is not a public servant. The only allegation against him is that he received money at the instance of accused No.1, a public servant and therefore, no intention can be imputed against him, as he has received money at the instructions of accused No.1, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43867 CRL.P No. 9287 of 2025 without having any knowledge about the transaction between the complainant and the said public servant. He has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in 'Karunanithi V/s. State Represented by Inspector of Police' reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1677 and stressed on paragraph No.15 of the said judgment which is extracted here under: 15. We first take up the case of A-2. It is no one's case that A-2 ever demanded any illegal gratification. He undoubtedly accepted the money on the directions of A-1 and kept the same with him. So, there was no demand of illegal gratification on his part. The demand made by A-1 cannot be attributed to A-2 as no evidence was adduced which could establish that A-2 was a habitual offender working in aid with A-1 or was facilitating A-1 in demanding and receiving illegal gratification. Accordingly, in the absence of any allegation or evidence that A-2 demanded bribe from the complainant or he was acting in connivence with A-1, he cannot be prosecuted for the commission of the crime of demanding and receiving illegal gratification. 3. As per prosecution, accused No.1, a public servant working as a police inspector at Chikkajala Police Station demanded bribe of Rs.10,00,000/- for registering a FIR. Initially, he received a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant. On 16.09.2021, when the complainant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43867 CRL.P No. 9287 of 2025 visited the police station, he demanded further amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and therefore, a complaint was lodged. It is the further case of the prosecution that on the date of trap, accused No.1 instructed the complainant to handover the money to accused No.2, who was present in the police station, who received the tainted amount and kept in his front pocket of the jeans pant. 4. Prima facie, there are materials to show that the tainted currency of Rs.2,00,000/- was recovered from accused No.2 i.e., present petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel that the amount was received by him only at the instructions of accused No.1 and he was not at all aware of any transaction between the complainant and accused No.1, cannot be accepted at this stage, as it is a matter for trial. The Apex Court in the above noted decision, after a full fledged trial has acquitted the accused there in. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43867 CRL.P No. 9287 of 2025 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non, and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute an offence under Section 7(a) or (A) of the prevention of Corruption Act, unless the material on record discloses that the accused accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe amount. 6. It is premature at this stage to conclude that the petitioner accepted money without knowing that it was bribe meant for accused No.1. As per prosecution, at the instruction of accused No.1, the tainted currency was accepted by the petitioner, who was present in the police station. His presence in the police station has not been explained and there was no reason for him to receive a huge cash of Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence the contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. No grounds are made to quash the proceedings. It is open for the petitioner to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43867 CRL.P No. 9287 of 2025 file an appropriate application seeking discharge, if so advised. 7. Petition is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed of. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE LDC CT-SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40