Karnataka High Court Quashes Bribery Case Against Driver | Acted On BESCOM Manager’s Instructions, No Independent Role Established
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a contractual employee accused under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court held that there was neither demand nor acceptance of bribe by the petitioner and observed that he had been unnecessarily brought into the frame of the crime merely due to his presence and subordination to the main accused. The bench concluded that the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.
The Court directed that the FIR registered against the petitioner be quashed and clarified that the observations in the order pertain solely to the petitioner and will not influence the proceedings pending against the main accused. The judgment, delivered on July 30, 2025, followed detailed consideration of submissions made by both parties and scrutiny of complaint records, trap proceedings, and audio evidence.
The petitioner, a 38-year-old contract driver employed at the BESCOM Corporate Office in Bengaluru, was implicated in Crime No. 53 of 2023 registered by the Lokayukta Police, Bangalore City Division. The crime was registered pursuant to a complaint filed by an electrical contractor (second respondent) on 22.11.2023, alleging demand and attempted acceptance of bribe by Accused No.1, a Chief General Manager at BESCOM, for conversion of an electrical supply order from commercial to industrial tariff.
The complainant alleged that Accused No.1 demanded a bribe of Rs. 10 lakhs, which was negotiated to Rs. 7.5 lakhs. When the complainant refused to pay, he filed a complaint with the Lokayukta on 22.11.2023. The Lokayukta registered a case and arranged a trap operation for the following day, i.e., 23.11.2023.
According to the complaint, Accused No.1 instructed the complainant to meet him at his office around 3:00 PM on 23.11.2023. During the meeting, the complainant allegedly handed over the bag containing the bribe amount to Accused No.1, who in turn called the petitioner (Accused No.2) into his cabin and instructed him to place the bag in the boot of the office vehicle.
The petitioner complied with the instruction and placed the bag in the boot of the car, whereupon the Lokayukta sleuths conducted the trap operation. The petitioner was arrested at the scene with the money in the car.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was a contract driver who had joined service only on 17.10.2023, barely a month before the incident. He had no knowledge of the events transpiring within the office and was merely following orders. The counsel contended that there was no allegation or evidence that the petitioner had demanded or accepted any bribe.
The prosecution, represented by the Special Public Prosecutor, submitted that even accepting a bribe on behalf of a public servant attracted culpability under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was asserted that although the demand was made by Accused No.1 and the money was found in the boot of his car, the petitioner had played a role by physically handling the bribe.
However, the prosecution admitted that the petitioner had joined duty on 17.10.2023 and the trap occurred on 23.11.2023. There was no material to show that he had any knowledge or role in the bribe transaction beyond placing the bag in the car upon instructions.
The judgment clarified that the complaint submitted by the complainant on 22.11.2023 did not mention the petitioner at all. The entire content of the complaint and audio recordings provided by the complainant were directed at Accused No.1. The trap panchanama only referred to the petitioner in relation to the physical act of placing the bag in the car and did not attribute any intent, knowledge, or culpable conduct to him.
The court reviewed the trap proceedings and noted that the petitioner was instructed to place the bag in the vehicle. The pre-trap and trap panchanamas did not indicate any demand or acceptance of bribe by the petitioner. The audio conversation recorded during the transaction involved only the complainant and Accused No.1.
The complainant could be heard asking the petitioner whether he wanted to count the money, to which the petitioner responded in the negative. The only exchange involving the petitioner was about confirming his name. No incriminating words, suggestions, or implications were directed at the petitioner in the recorded conversation.
In this context, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that he was falsely implicated due to his proximity and subordinate position to Accused No.1.
The Court noted: "A perusal at the entire complaint no where refers to the petitioner/accused No.2. Not a word is found against accused No.2. It is entirely dedicated to accused No.1."
Further referring to the trap panchanama, the Court observed: "The trap panchanama refers to accused No.2/petitioner that he was a Driver of Innova Car which accused No.1 was holding and ₹7.5 lakhs was given to him to put it in the boot of the car. Accused No.2 is said to have opened boot of the car to keep it at the said place. At that time the trap is laid."
Reviewing the recorded conversation submitted as evidence, the Court stated: "The complainant asks accused No.2 'do you want to count'. Accused No.2 says 'no'. Complainant hands over the bag and asks his name; he has answered 'his name is Murali'. Barring this, there is nothing that is done by accused No.2."
Justice M. Nagaprasanna stated that the presence of the petitioner and his actions were not sufficient to attract culpability under Section 7(a). He stated: "The Driver who had admittedly joined a month ago in the office of accused No.1 on contract basis is dragged into the web of crime on the circumstances generated by accused No.1."
Quoting the Supreme Court in Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2025) 4 SCC 624, the Court recorded: "There is considerable doubt raised in our mind, which qualifies as reasonable doubt, as to whether there was acceptance of bribe amounts by both the accused."
The Court further referred to the precedent in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731, noting: "It is well settled that for establishing the commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, proof of demand of gratification and acceptance of the gratification is a sine qua non."
The bench concluded that: "There is neither demand nor acceptance of bribe by accused No.2. It is not the case of the complainant even that accused No.2 has demanded or accepted."
Responding to the prosecution's reliance on Explanation 2 to Section 7, the Court stated: "Even this provision cannot be stretched to a breaking point, so as to ensnare a contract Driver utterly unaware of the sordid transaction unfolding before him, when he was asked to keep the bag in the boot by accused No.1."
On the issue of abuse of process, the Court held: "Permitting further investigation even against the petitioner in the case at hand or even filing of the charge sheet, would on the face of it, become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice."
The Court issued the following directives:
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Crime No.53 of 2023 pending before the XXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bengaluru stands quashed qua petitioner/accused No.2.
(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings pending against accused No.1.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Sri Prashanth S., Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri B.B. Patil, Special Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Murali Krishna R. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Petition No.204 of 2024
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
