Karnataka High Court quashes corruption case against BESCOM driver acting on superior’s instructions

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a corruption case filed against a contractual driver employed with the Chief General Manager of BESCOM, observing that the driver was merely following instructions and had no role in the demand or acceptance of a bribe. Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that prosecuting the driver—who had joined just 40 days prior to the incident—would be unjust, especially in the absence of any direct allegation or evidence implicating him.

The case arose after an electrical contractor lodged a complaint with the Lokayukta, alleging that the BESCOM Manager (Accused No. 1) had demanded a bribe of ₹10 lakhs for converting the electric supply from commercial to industrial tariff. Based on the complaint, a trap was laid.

According to the petitioner-driver (Accused No. 2), he had been called to the office and made to wait outside the Manager’s cabin. He was later instructed by the Manager to place a bag in the boot of the official car. It was while he was doing so that the Lokayukta officials conducted the trap operation. Subsequently, the driver was named as a co-accused in the case under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Challenging the FIR and subsequent proceedings, the driver submitted that he was completely unaware of the contents of the bag and had no involvement in the alleged transaction. He contended that he neither demanded nor received any bribe and had merely obeyed the instructions of his superior officer.

The prosecution, however, argued that any person who accepts a bribe on behalf of a public servant is liable under Section 7(a) of the Act.

Rejecting the prosecution’s contention, the High Court referred to the contents of the complaint and the trap panchanama, noting that neither made any mention of the driver. The Court observed:

“The complaint nowhere refers to the petitioner/accused No.2. Not a word is found against accused No.2. It is entirely dedicated to accused No.1. In the trap panchanama again there is no reference to the name of the petitioner.”

Justice Nagaprasanna further noted:

“The driver, a humble contract employee, 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) of the Act.”

Emphasizing the absence of incriminating material against the driver and the lack of any direct involvement in the corrupt act, the Court concluded that he had been unnecessarily implicated due to the actions of Accused No. 1.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the driver.