9 months ago
Karnataka HC Refuses to Quash Bribery Case Against Assistant Prosecutor
The Karnataka High Court recently decided not to stop a bribery case against an assistant prosecutor named Poornima G. The case involves a forest officer, R Nagarajaiah, who was acquitted in a previous case.
Poornima allegedly demanded money from Nagarajaiah and others to change her legal opinion.
The court said that whether the work was done or not doesn't matter; the important thing is the demand and acceptance of the bribe.
The court decided that the trial court should decide if Poornima is guilty, and the high court won't interfere.
The case will now proceed to trial.
Karnataka High Court refused to quash proceedings against Assistant Prosecutor Poornima G in a bribery case.
Poornima allegedly demanded Rs 10,000 from each acquitted person, including R Nagarajaiah, to change her legal opinion.
Nagarajaiah approached the Lokayukta police, leading to the accused being caught in a trap.
The court ruled that the demand and acceptance of the bribe are the key issues, not whether the work was completed.
The case will proceed to trial, and the high court's observations will not influence the trial court's verdict.
- Who
- Assistant Prosecutor Poornima G and Range Forest Officer R Nagarajaiah
- What
- Bribery case involving demand and acceptance of money for legal opinion
- Where
- Tumakuru district’s Tiptur, Karnataka
- When
- Order passed on November 21, 2023, made public on Monday
- Why
- To determine the guilt of the accused in the bribery case
Key facts
- Case Involved
- Range Forest Officer R Nagarajaiah and Assistant Prosecutor Poornima G
- Date of Order
- November 21, 2023
- Amount Allegedly Demanded
- Rs 10,000 from each acquitted person
- Total Amount Paid
- Rs 20,000
- Act Involved
- Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 7
- Court's Decision
- Dismissed the petition to quash the proceedings
Quotes
Karnataka High Court
The judicial body that passed the order in the bribery case.
“What is sought to be punished is obtaining or accepting or attempting to obtain the illegal gratification. The result is immaterial. The allegation in the instant case is that the petitioner hid from the second respondent the fact of submitting an opinion adverse to his interest and then tried to obtain a bribe…The offence in the instant case is demanding and accepting the bribe. The fact of legal opinion being given against the interest of the petitioner is immaterial. No doubt, the onus of proving the same lies upon the prosecution.”
indianexpress.com
Sources
Related news
Lokayukta Trap Catches NVDA Sub-Engineer Taking ₹14,000 Bribe
Ashoka Demands Ministers’ Dismissal, CBI Probe Into KRIDL
Leaders Honour Ramakrishna Hegde’s Legacy of Decentralised Governance
Questions Mount Over RTI Activist’s Complaints and Alleged Threats
Suryapet cement plant forest land row sparks dispute
