Why Karnataka High Court said complainants must get trap money back

The bench also felt that such an approach would foster public confidence in anti-corruption mechanisms and encourage honest citizens to come forward with complaints against corrupt public servants.

The bench has suggested that in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, currency notes utilised during the trap may necessarily remain in judicial custody as material objects until their evidentiary purpose is exhausted.

The prosecuting agency, through the instrumentality of the State, is to restore to the complainant an equivalent amount from the State exchequer immediately after the trap proceedings attain finality for investigative purposes, it added.

Case before the court

G Eshwaraiah, 60, a contractor, had lodged a complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against one K Madhusudhana for demanding a bribe of Rs 80,000 from him for closure of GST liability demand against him. Based on the complaint filed on June 5, 2022, a trap was laid, and the accused came to be arrested red-handed under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Thereafter, Eshwaraiah approached the court seeking refund of trap money along with interest. Advocate H S Poornima appearing for the petitioner argued that the seized trap money was his hard-earned money. The trial may sometimes take five or seven years for completion, and the trap money is released only after conclusion of trial. Thus, the advocate reasoned, a complainant whose money is used for trap proceedings and is not restored is in a bad place as against the alleged corrupt officer.

Special Public Prosecutor P Prasanna Kumar admitted that trap money belongs to the petitioner. But, he claimed, there is no procedure for return of the trap money to the complainant.

The court noted that prosecuting agencies do not advance or finance the trap amount and entrust it to the complainant for effectuating the trap, and it is the complainant who parts with his own money to facilitate the detection of an alleged act of corruption. Thus the ownership of the trap amount never migrates from the complainant to the State, merely because the currency notes momentarily assume the character of material evidence.

The court noted that under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seized property can be restored to its lawful owners. However, in trap cases, seized articles are currency notes whose denomination, serial numbers and identifying particulars are meticulously incorporated into the recovery mahazar.

Observing that the scales of justice must remain evenly balanced, the court said, “Every successful trap is founded upon the courage of an honest citizen who chooses the path of legality over silent submission. Such a citizen should emerge from the process with the satisfaction of having assisted the administration of criminal justice, not with the additional burden of financial impoverishment.”

The order added, “To compel the complainant to wait for years together for restoration of his property, merely because he assisted the State, would amount to converting his public spiritedness into an unintended penalty.”

Accordingly, it disposed of Eshwaraiah’s plea and directed him to file an application before the trial court seeking release of trap money arranged by him. The trial court is to consider the same and decide on the plea within four weeks.