2026:UHC:3341 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/879/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. B.S. Bhandari, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2024, arising out of offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending before the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Haldwani, District Nainital. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant, who is posted as Revenue Sub-Inspector, has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the original dispute pertains to agricultural land, wherein the complainant had moved an application before the S.D.M., Sitarganj seeking permission to harvest his paddy crop due to interference by certain private persons; that, pursuant to the directions of the S.D.M., the present applicant conducted spot inspection and submitted his report, on the basis of which the competent 2026:UHC:3341 authority permitted the complainant to harvest the crop. It is further submitted that the crop was subsequently harvested in the presence of police and revenue officials, and thereafter the complainant himself moved an application before the police stating that he did not wish to pursue any legal action. 5. He would further submit that after completion of the aforesaid proceedings, the complainant subsequently lodged a complaint before the Vigilance Department on 20.10.2023 alleging, for the first time, that the applicant had demanded illegal gratification of ₹8,000/- through the Village Pradhan prior to submission of his report. It is submitted that the said complaint is an afterthought and has been drafted by the Village Pradhan. On the basis of such complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted, wherein it was alleged that there was a recorded conversation between the applicant and the Village Pradhan regarding demand of bribe, leading to constitution of a trap team. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the entire trap proceedings are vitiated in law, inasmuch as the same were not conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure. It is contended that the complaint was not properly routed through the competent 2026:UHC:3341 supervisory authority, and the trap was conducted without adhering to the standard operating procedure under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is also argued that there is no credible evidence to establish the essential ingredient of “demand” of illegal gratification by the applicant, and he has been falsely implicated by the vigilance team in connivance with the complainant. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that pursuant to the complaint, a trap was duly organized by the Vigilance Department, and the applicant was apprehended red-handed while accepting the bribe amount, which was recovered from his possession at the spot. It is further submitted that the investigation has culminated in filing of charge-sheet and the matter is presently at the stage of trial. 8. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At this stage, it would be relevant to note the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 SCC (4) 731, wherein it has been held that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and such demand can be established either by direct or 2026:UHC:3341 circumstantial evidence. 9. Even if the contention of learned counsel for the applicant is accepted to the extent that there was no prior demand made by the applicant, it is well settled that where a bribe giver voluntarily makes an offer to pay illegal gratification without any prior demand, and the public servant accepts such offer and receives the gratification, the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act would still be attracted on account of such acceptance and in such a situation, prior demand by the public servant is not a necessary precondition. 9. In the present case, prima facie material on record indicates that a trap was laid and the alleged bribe amount was recovered from the possession of the applicant at the spot. The veracity of the demand, the manner of trap, and alleged procedural irregularities are matters which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that a prima facie case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against the applicant, and no ground for quashing of the proceedings is made out at this stage. 11. Accordingly, the present C-528 application is dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. (Alok Mahra, J.) 02.05.2026 Mamta MAMT A RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e5 84af1449e430ef900bf09a6d67ebbd6 42671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd5 4852c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a1916 48ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.05.05 10:21:08 +05'30' 2026:UHC:3341