Defence for sake of defence: HC rejects cop’s plea

The advocate for constable Parthasarathi argued that he was not the authority to take a decision either to register an FIR or arraign the complainant as accused in the case, so couldn't have asked for bribe

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has said it cannot accept an argument that is made just for the sake of defence.

A constable accused of accepting a bribe of Rs 20,000 claimed that he had only taken a loan from the accused, and it was not graft. “His explanation about borrowing money was just a defence for the sake of defence. If Rs 20,000 was not illegal gratification, he should have given an explanation as to in which connection he received the money,” the HC said.

TB Parthasarathi, a police constable in the Cottonpet Police Station is the accused in the case. The complainant in the case is V Mylari, the car driver of one Jayakumar. He apparently left the job after realising that Jayakumar was involved in criminal activities.

A month later, Jayakumar was booked in a credit card scam. Mylari complained that Parthasarathi and Sub-Inspector Balaji while interrogating Mylari in the case demanded a bribe of Rs 2 lakh, so that he was not implicated in the case.

The demand was later reduced to Rs 1 lakh. Mylari claimed he pledged jewellery with a pawnbroker and paid Rs 50,000 bribe to the accused on December 12, 2011. He further paid Rs 30,000 on December 22. Mylari then complained to the Lokayukta, who laid a trap for the accused.

On February 6, 2012, while Mylari paid Rs 20,000 as bribe to Parthasarathi, the latter was arrested by the Lokayukta. The trial court convicted him in 2016. He filed an appeal in the High Court in 2016, which was disposed of by Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar on October 29, 2022.

In the High Court, the advocate for constable Parthasarathi argued that he was not the authority to take a decision either to register an FIR or arraign the complainant as accused in the case, as he was just a police constable. The court was told that there was no official work that was to be performed by the accused and for that reason, it was highly impossible that he would have demanded bribes.

The HC said: “Of course this line of argument is possible, but the accused cannot take advantage of it. Although the accused had no authority to arraign (complainant) as an accused, if the (complainant) had the threat of being implicated in the case registered against Jayakumar, and for not implicating him as accused, if the accused wanted money, it was nothing but illegal gratification within the meaning of Section 7 of the PC Act. This line of argument therefore fails.” The conviction of constable Parthasarathi was thus upheld.