Third-party bribe receipt alone cannot establish a public servant’s demand and acceptance.

M/s DR Developers authorised respondent No. 2 to pursue a BESCOM/KPTCL no-objection certificate (NOC).

The complaint alleged that the petitioner, an Executive Engineer in the Energy Minister’s office, demanded ₹1 lakh, later indicating ₹50,000, in connection with the NOC.

Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint with the Lokayukta, and a trap resulted in accused No. 2—not the petitioner—being apprehended while accepting ₹50,000.

The petitioner was arrayed as accused No. 1, and Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was also invoked during investigation.

He sought to quash the FIR and proceedings insofar as they concerned him

1. Whether the material in the complaint and investigation disclosed a prima facie basis to proceed against the petitioner for offences under Sections 7(a) and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, where the alleged bribe was accepted by another person

2. Whether the proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed at the investigation stage, or whether the allegations concerning demand and acceptance through a third party should be left for trial

Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of the foundational facts of demand and acceptance or obtainment of an undue advantage; under Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi, those facts may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, but the Section 20 presumption arises only after the foundational facts are established

B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana and Soundarajan v. State reiterate that recovery or acceptance alone does not establish the offence without the requisite proof of demand

The Court also considered State of Karnataka v. Mahesh P.S., which recognises that alleged acceptance through a third party may be a matter for trial and that undue advantage may be obtained indirectly, and Bharat Raj Meena v. CBI, which requires reliable evidence connecting the intermediary’s conduct and the demand to the accused; mere receipt by a third party is insufficient

The Court noted that the trap and recovery concerned accused No. 2, while no trap was laid against the petitioner and no money was recovered from him

Although the complaint alleged that the petitioner demanded money, the Court found the material—including the telephone conversation relied on by the prosecution—did not indicate that the petitioner demanded or accepted the alleged amount.

It further found that the NOC file had proceeded through the relevant hierarchy and was not placed before the petitioner for approval

Applying the principles on third-party acceptance, the Court concluded that the evidence did not establish a sufficient link between the petitioner and accused No. 2’s acceptance, or otherwise provide the necessary foundation to attribute demand and acceptance to the petitioner.

It therefore held that continuing the investigation against him would amount to an abuse of process