The High Court of Karnataka has refused to quash a corruption case against an officer of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB), who was caught in a “reverse-trap” case when he was returning the alleged bribe money of ₹3 lakh in cash to the complainant.
“In a reverse trap scenario, the public servant allegedly returns money previously received as illegal gratification. These facts, when projected before the court, require a complex evidentiary matrix. The issues that arise in cases of reverse trap are distinct from a traditional trap. The central twist in a reverse trap would be as to why the public servant returns the money,” the court said.
The court said the case requires investigation to demonstrate the innocence of a public servant, as the matter is still at the stage of investigation, to clear obfuscation about whether the bribe was ever demanded or accepted in the first place.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while dismissing a petition filed by A.B. Vijaya Kumar, who was working as Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO)-2 at KIADB, Bengaluru, during September 2022.
The complainant, B.S. Arun, had alleged that he had sought a no-objection certificate from the KIADB for construction related to a temple at Laggere in Bengaluru. Though the petitioner-SLAO had demanded ₹4 lakh bribe and received ₹2.5 lakh through another person from his office for issuing the NoC, the document was not issued despite repeated requests. Hence, Mr. Arun had lodged a complaint with the Special Deputy Commissioner of the KIADB alleging that the petitioner was not issuing the NoC despite receiving the bribe.
Following this complaint, the petitioner issued the NoC and is said to have offered to return the bribe amount as a donation to the temple with a request to Mr. Arun to withdraw the complaint made to the Special Deputy Commissioner.
The Lokayukta police, acting on the complaint by Mr. Aurn, caught the petitioner red-handed when he was returning ₹3 lakh to the complainant.
But it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the complaint could not have been registered as there was no material for demand and acceptance besides there being mismatch of ₹50,000 between the alleged bribe amount received and returned.
However, the court declined to interfere in the investigation, stating that the probe is essential to find out whether the bribe was in fact demanded and accepted as per the law.
Published – June 07, 2025 09:59 pm IST
