Introduction:

In Murali Krishna R v. The State of Karnataka (2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 258; Criminal Petition No. 204 of 2024), the Karnataka High Court addressed a petition by R. Murali Krishna, a contract driver employed by BESCOM and accused as the second respondent in a corruption probe. He was implicated for placing a bag containing alleged bribe money in the car boot of his superior—the Chief General Manager—based solely on verbal instructions. The Sessions Court framed charges under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, asserting the driver had accepted a bribe. On appeal, Justice M. Nagaprasanna quashed the case against him, underscoring the unfairness of prosecuting a novice contractor merely following orders, and finding no evidence he demanded or accepted the bribe.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Driver):

Murali Krishna, who had joined BESCOM just 40 days prior to the incident on a contract basis, argued before the High Court that he was entirely unaware of any bribery scheme. He asserted that he neither demanded nor received any money—he simply complied with his manager’s direction to place a bag in the car. His petition highlighted that all incriminating evidence and recorded statements pointed exclusively to the BESCOM manager (Accused No. 1), who was alleged to have requested and accepted the bribe. The driver maintained that he was dragged into the case unfairly, having no knowledge of internal office corruption, and was wrongfully prosecuted based solely on presence and obedience.

Prosecution’s Position:

The State contended that under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, any person who accepts or handles a bribe on behalf of a public servant may be criminally liable—even if not the primary accused. They argued that by placing the bag containing cash, the driver effectively participated in the acceptance of bribe. Thus, prosecution against him was justified under legal provisions covering accomplices or third-party facilitators in corruption acts.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice M. Nagaprasanna examined the factual matrix and legal principles under Section 7(a). The bench emphasized that the demand and acceptance of the bribe had been proven solely with respect to the manager, not the driver. The High Court noted: “Driver is caught in the web of crime. Even if the incident is taken as true, it would not amount to an offence under Section 7(a)” owing to absence of demand or acceptance by him. The complaint and trap panchanama reportedly made no mention of the driver—accused No. 2—focusing entirely on the manager’s actions. The bench held that prosecuting a humble contract employee who had served merely at managerial instruction, without awareness or intent, was unfair and lacked evidentiary basis. Recording of the trap only implicated Accused No. 1, making it wrong to include the driver. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the case against the driver quashed.