Reverse trap case: Karnataka high court refuses to quash proceedings against govt officer | Bengaluru News
Bengaluru: The high court has refused to quash proceedings in a rare “reverse trap” bribery case, where a govt officer was caught allegedly returning a bribe to the complainant.Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by AB Vijaya Kumar, former special land acquisition officer-II of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) and currently a joint director in the department of municipal administration.The case pertains to a complaint filed by one Bhagath Singh Arun, who alleged that Vijaya Kumar demanded Rs 5 lakh to issue a no-objection certificate (NOC) in connection with RTC documents for the Shri Dinne Duggalamma temple in Laggere village. The bribe amount was eventually negotiated to Rs 2.5 lakh and allegedly paid through Kumar’s relative, identified as Sommanna.As the NOC was not issued, Arun submitted a formal complaint to the KIADB special deputy commissioner on July 7, 2022. Interestingly, two days later, Vijaya Kumar reportedly prepared the NOC and urged Arun to withdraw the complaint. Meanwhile, Lokayukta police had initiated a probe, conducted pre-trap formalities, and arranged for witnesses. On Sept 21, 2022, the accused was caught by Lokayukta police while returning Rs 3 lakh to the complainant.Vijaya Kumar challenged the FIR, contending that there was no concrete evidence of demand, acceptance, or personal gain. He also pointed out the mismatch between the alleged bribe (Rs 2.5 lakh) and the returned amount (Rs 3 lakh), arguing that the Prevention of Corruption Act does not specifically cover the return of illegal gratification.However, Lokayukta police argued that all necessary legal elements were present and that the motive for returning the money could only be determined during trial.In his judgment, Justice Nagaprasanna termed the matter a classic “reverse trap” case, where the accused, aware of a likely investigation, attempts to return the bribe. The court held that such cases require nuanced evidence and a detailed examination of the chain of events. Noting the existence of documented demand and acceptance, the court refused to interfere with the investigation.The petition was dismissed, with the judge emphasising the need for a thorough investigation of the connected events.
