Karnataka high court says outcome irrelevant in bribery cases, rejects assistant public prosecutor’s plea | Bengaluru News

Bengaluru: The high court declined to quash proceedings against an assistant public prosecutor in a bribery case registered by Lokayukta police.Poornima G, who was assistant public prosecutor at Tiptur judicial magistrate first class (JMFC) court, had challenged the proceedings initiated on a complaint filed by R Nagarajaiah, range forest officer at Chikkanayakanahalli in Tumakuru district.

Nagarajaiah was among the accused in a criminal case in which he was acquitted. The file subsequently came to Poornima for her opinion. Though she advised the govt to file an appeal against the acquittal, she allegedly demanded Rs 10,000 each from the four accused, including Nagarajaiah, promising a favourable opinion.According to the prosecution, Narasimha Murthy, who allegedly acted on Poornima’s behalf, was caught by Lokayukta police while Rs 20,000 of the bribe amount was being transferred to his bank account. Proceedings under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act were initiated against Poornima, Murthy and a typist.Challenging the case, Poornima argued that she had given an adverse opinion against the complainant on Feb 25, 2019, while the alleged demand was made on March 1 and the trap laid on April 29, 2019.She contended that the alleged bribe pertained to work that had already been completed — and was, in fact, against the complainant’s interests — and therefore, no offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was made out.Opposing the plea, Lokayukta police and the complainant submitted that the petitioner, with the intent of illegally gaining money, raised a bribe demand despite having already given an adverse opinion. ‘Demanding/accepting bribe an offence’Justice MI Arun noted that, as per Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, irrespective of whether the work was done or not, demanding and accepting the gratification constitutes an offence. The section does not distinguish between work done in favour of the bribe-giver or against him, the court noted, adding that what was sought to be punished was obtaining, accepting or attempting to obtain the illegal gratification, and the result was immaterial.The court noted the allegation in the case was that the petitioner hid from the complainant the fact of submitting an opinion adverse to his interest and then tried to obtain a bribe by misleading him that she was yet to give the opinion and that, upon him and others paying the bribe, she would give a favourable opinion. The offence in the case was demanding and accepting the bribe, it said. Justice Arun specified that the trial court would have to decide the case without being influenced by the observations made in the order.