Bribe Giver Susceptible To Prosecution Like Bribe Taker: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Case Over Alleged Bribes To Ex-Legislator's Son

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by owners and two employees of the Karnataka Aromas Company for quashing the FIR filed by Lokayukta police on allegations of offering to pay bribe to Prashanth, son of former Legislator Madal Virupakshappa, in relation to an alleged tender scam.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed,

“It is high time the menace of corruption is plugged and nipped in the bud by making the bribe giver susceptible for such prosecution, like the bribe taker.”

Kailash S. Raj, Vinay S. Raj, and Chetan Marlecha are owners of Karnataka Aromas Company, and its two employees, Albert Nicolas and Gangadhar, who are charged under sections 7(b), 7A, 8, 9 & 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

On a complaint lodged alleging that Virupakshappa had demanded illegal gratification to process a certain tender in Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd (KSDL) of which he was the Chairman then, the Lokayukta police raided the office of Prashanth Kumar where Albert Nicolas and Gangadhar were allegedly found carrying cash.

The petitioners argued that at best the offences that can be laid against the petitioners, as they are not public servants, are the ones punishable under Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Act.

"The Amendment Act of 2018 to the Act introduced proviso which clearly depicts that if the bribe giver is compelled to give bribe in the circumstances beyond his control, he should report it to the agency within one week. Even before one week could lapse, the crime is registered and the petitioners are accused,” it was argued.

The prosecution opposed the plea saying the petitioners have rushed to the Court immediately after registration of the FIR and the investigation is still on.

Findings:

The bench noted that two accused, office bearers of Karnataka Aromas Company, were admittedly caught at the time when the search was conducted, holding two bags of cash of 45 lakhs each and were sitting in the personal office of Prashanth.

It said “The question is why were they sitting in the personal office of accused No.1, a public servant and why were they sitting with bags containing cash of 45 lakhs each waiting to see accused No.1 in his personal office, would become a matter of investigation.”

The bench held “The offence against the office bearers of M/s Karnataka Aromas Company is, therefore, met. Section 10 deals with person in-charge of commercial organization to be guilty of offence. The section mandates that where an offence under Section 9 is committed by a commercial organization, the person/s who are incharge would also be guilty of the offence. Accused No.5 who are depicted as office bearers are the persons in-charge of the Company. Therefore, ingredients of Sections 8, 9 and 10 are prima facie met in the case at hand.”

It added “It is for the petitioners to come out clean in the investigation as money is found in the personal office of accused No.1. There is no satisfactory explanation.”

Rejecting the contention of the petitioners that one of the accused namely Deepak Jadhav has admitted and claimed ownership of the cash and has given a statement to the Police to that effect, the bench said, “The said statement is also required to be tested before a Court of law in evidence. Therefore, the ownership claimed by accused No.4 would not mean that registration of crime against other accused should be quashed. They are all a matter of evidence.”

The bench expressed that prima facie if the story narrated by the Petitioners is accepted, it would be accepting a "screenplay of a potboiler" without letting investigation to be conducted into. "A story twined is interesting to listen, it is a katha sangama but, if on the story the petitioners are left of the hook, the very object behind the amendment and substituting Sections 8, 9 and 10 would be rendered redundant.”

It then opined that corruption has percolated to every nook and corner of public life in the country and has become an issue in all walks of life posing a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance.

Thus the bench rejected the petition.

Case Title: Kailash S Raj & others And State of Karnataka

Case NO: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3371 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.3314 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 246

Date of Order: 26-06-2023

Appearance: Senior Advocate Sandesh J Chouta a/w advocate Bharath Kumar for petitioners.

Special PP B.B.Patil for respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Order