Uttarakhand High Court
(Under Section 482 Of The Cr.P.C.) vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 6 May, 2026
2026:UHC:3405
Reserved on 15.04.2026
Delivered on 05.05.2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application NO.2399 of 2023
(Under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.)
Ramesh Chandra Tripathi ................Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another ............Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. U.K. Uniyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Harshit
Sanwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per: Hon'ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.
Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
has been preferred seeking quashing of the entire
proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 52 of 2023, titled
State vs. Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, arising out of Case
Crime No. 05 of 2023, under Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Vigilance
Establishment Sector, Nainital, Haldwani, presently
pending before the Court of learned Special Judge
(Prevention of Corruption Act)/2nd Additional Sessions
Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital. The applicant has
further prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet dated
19.10.2023, the cognizance/summoning order dated
1
2026:UHC:3405
03.11.2023, and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom.
2. Learned senior counsel for the applicant would
submit that, as per the prosecution case, on 24.08.2023,
a trap team constituted by the Vigilance Department
proceeded from Haldwani and reached near Metropolis
Mall, Rudrapur; that, the team allegedly divided into two
groups; one consisting of the complainant, shadow
witness Girja Shankar Pandey, and Inspector Manohar
Singh Dasauni, who were tasked with overhearing the
conversation and witnessing the alleged transaction, while
the other team was to act upon receiving a pre-arranged
signal. It is alleged that the complainant was provided
with a voice recorder to capture the conversation.
3. It is further alleged that at about 16:35 hours,
the applicant arrived in his vehicle, whereupon the
complainant approached him and, upon opening the car
door, the applicant allegedly demanded money, and the
complainant handed over ₹1,00,000/- from his jeans
pocket. Upon signal by the shadow witness, the trap team
apprehended the applicant; that, due to an alleged
commotion at the spot, the remaining proceedings were
conducted at Cyber Police Station, SIDCUL. It is further
alleged that the tainted currency notes were recovered
2
2026:UHC:3405
from the shirt pocket of the applicant and, upon chemical
testing with sodium carbonate solution, the solution
turned pink. On the basis of these allegations, FIR No. 05
of 2023 was registered on 25.08.2023 under Section 7 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is further alleged that
a search of the applicant’s residence resulted in recovery
of cash amounting to ₹25,17,350/- along with certain
property documents.
4. Learned senior counsel would further submit
that the applicant, who has been serving as District
Panchayat Raj Officer, Udham Singh Nagar since 2005,
has an unblemished service record spanning over 18
years. It is contended that the present proceedings are a
result of false and motivated allegations engineered by the
complainant, who was himself under scrutiny; that, the
applicant had been entrusted with conducting an inquiry
into allegations of misappropriation of public funds
involving the complainant and a Village Development
Officer, pursuant to complaints received on the Chief
Minister’s Portal and further directions dated 23.08.2023.
It is submitted that the inquiry subsequently culminated
in findings against the complainant and others, thereby
providing a strong motive for false implication of the
applicant. It is further submitted that the foundational
3
2026:UHC:3405
requirement for an offence under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, namely, demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification, is wholly absent in the
present case. It is contended that no dues of the
complainant were pending with the office of the applicant,
and therefore, there was no occasion or motive for the
applicant to demand any gratification. It is further
submitted that the applicant, being the District Panchayat
Raj Officer, had no statutory authority to release or
withhold payments relating to Gram Sabha funds, which,
as per Section 40 of the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act,
are to be operated jointly by the Pradhan and the Gram
Panchayat Officer.
5. Learned senior counsel further contends that
the applicant neither had any direct role nor any
supervisory authority in the disbursement of the alleged
dues, nor is there any allegation of conspiracy with the
competent authority. In support, reliance has been placed
on information obtained under the Right to Information
Act indicating that no dues of the complainant were
pending before the applicant’s office. It is further argued
that the alleged trap proceedings are vitiated by serious
procedural irregularities; that, there is no independent
witness to corroborate the demand of illegal gratification;
4
2026:UHC:3405
the conversation was not recorded as the voice recorder
was allegedly not switched on; and the recovery
proceedings were not conducted at the spot but at a
different location, thereby casting serious doubt on their
authenticity; that, the pocket of the shirt from which
recovery is alleged was not seized nor subjected to
chemical examination, which materially weakens the
prosecution case. He has further submitted that the
photocopies of the bill allegedly recovered from the office of
the applicant pertain to Gram Panchayat ‘Dhankot’, Vikas
Khand Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, which is
stated to be a non-existent village. On this basis, it is
contended that the applicant has falsely been implicated
in the present case.
6. Learned senior counsel has further emphasized
that despite the incident allegedly occurring at a public
place equipped with CCTV surveillance, the investigating
agency failed to collect or preserve such crucial electronic
evidence, which could have provided an unbiased account
of the incident; that, repeated representations made by the
applicant for preservation and production of CCTV footage
have not been acted upon. It is also contended that the
charge-sheet has been filed in a mechanical and
premature manner without completion of investigation as
5
2026:UHC:3405
the Forensic Science Laboratory reports relating to voice
samples, audio recordings, and other material evidence
were admittedly awaited at the time of filing of the charge-
sheet. Further, the requisite sanction for prosecution
under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and
compliance of Section 17A of the Act are alleged to be
deficient, thereby vitiating the proceedings.
7. In support of the above submissions, reliance
has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta vs. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2023) 4 SCC 731, wherein it has been held that proof of
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine
qua non for establishing an offence under the Prevention
of Corruption Act. It is further submitted, relying upon
Soundarajan vs. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 424, that
mere recovery of currency notes, in the absence of proof of
demand, is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel would
vehemently oppose the C-482 application and submitted
that the applicant was apprehended in a trap proceeding
while accepting illegal gratification, and the prosecution
case is supported by ocular as well as documentary
evidence, including statements of witnesses and scientific
evidence. It is further submitted that the sanction for
6
2026:UHC:3405
prosecution has been duly obtained and that any alleged
deficiencies in investigation or sanction are matters to be
adjudicated during trial and not at the stage of quashing.
It is further contended on behalf of the State that although
the formal disbursement of funds may have been the
responsibility of the Village Panchayat Development
Officer, the applicant, being the head of the department,
exercised supervisory control and influence over such
disbursement, and therefore, the demand of illegal
gratification cannot be ruled out at this stage.
9. To this, learned senior counsel for the
applicant submits that the prosecution’s case rests on
conjectures and assumptions regarding “verbal influence”
without any supporting material; that, in the absence of
any legally recognizable authority or documented control
over the disbursement process, the allegation of demand
is essentially improbable and unsustainable in the eyes of
law.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
11. Upon hearing both sides and examining the
record, the Court finds that the following questions need
to be decided:
(i) Whether the basic requirements of an offence
under Section 7 of the Prevention of7
2026:UHC:3405
Corruption Act, 1988 are made out at this
stage?
(ii) Whether this Court should quash the
proceedings by using its powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.?
12. It is a settled legal position that to prove an
offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, the prosecution
must show that there was a demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification/bribe. In this regard, reference may be
made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731,
wherein it has been held that proof of demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for
establishing the offence, and such demand may be proved
either by direct or circumstantial evidence. The relevant
extract is reproduced hereinbelow:
“88.4 (d) In order to prove the fact in issue,
namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by the public servant, the following
aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) If there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver
without there being any demand from the public
servant and the latter simply accepts the offer
and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case
of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In
such a case, there need not be a prior demand
by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant
makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts8
2026:UHC:3405
the demand and tenders the demanded
gratification which, in turn, is received by the
public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the
case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal
gratification emanates from the public servant.
This would fall under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii)
of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer
by the bribe giver and the demand by the public
servant respectively have to be proved by the
prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words,
mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal
gratification without anything more would not
make it an offence under Section 7 or Section
13(1)(d), (i) and (ii), respectively of the Act.
Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to
bring home the offence, there must be an offer
which emanates from the bribe giver which is
accepted by the public servant which would
make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand
by the public servant when accepted by the
bribe giver and in turn there is payment made
which is received by the public servant, would
be an offence of obtainment under Section
13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.”
13. In the present case, the prosecution alleges
that a trap was laid on 24.08.2023, pursuant to which the
applicant was apprehended while accepting a sum of
₹1,00,000/- from the complainant. The material collected
during investigation includes recovery of tainted currency
notes, their verification, and a positive phenolphthalein
9
2026:UHC:3405
test.
14. The contention of the applicant that there is
no recorded conversation, owing to the recording device
not being operational, and that there is no independent
proof of demand, cannot be conclusively adjudicated at
this stage. The statements of the shadow witness and
members of the trap team prima facie indicate demand
and acceptance; however, their evidentiary value and
credibility can only be tested during trial. Likewise, the
plea that the applicant lacked authority to release the
payment involves disputed questions of fact. The
prosecution asserts that the applicant, being a Senior
Officer, exercised influence over subordinate officials and
was in a position to facilitate the release of payment. The
veracity of such assertion can only be determined upon
appreciation of evidence during trial. The further plea of
false implication on account of a pending enquiry against
the complainant is also a matter of defence, which cannot
be examined at this stage.
15. The objections regarding absence of CCTV
footage, non-availability of the FSL report, and alleged
procedural irregularities in the conduct of the trap
proceedings relate to the evidentiary appreciation of the
prosecution case. These aspects are to be considered
10
2026:UHC:3405
during trial and do not furnish a valid ground for
quashing the proceedings at the threshold. Insofar as
sanction is concerned, the record indicates that requisite
approval has been granted by the competent authority
prior to submission of the charge-sheet. The validity or
adequacy of such sanction is also a matter to be examined
during trial.
16. It is trite law that the inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly,
with circumspection, and only in cases where no offence is
made out on the face of the record or where continuation
of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of
law. In the present case, the allegations made in the F.I.R.
and the material collected during investigation prima facie
disclose the commission of an offence under Section 7 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act. The defences raised by
the applicant involve disputed questions of fact, which are
not amenable to adjudication in proceedings under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court
finds no ground to interfere in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the
present application is dismissed. It is, however, clarified
that any observations made herein are confined to the
11
2026:UHC:3405
disposal of the present application and shall not prejudice
the trial on merits.
18. No order as to costs.
MA
Digitally signed by MAMTA
RANI (ALOK MAHRA,J.)
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND, 06.05.2026
Mamta ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
MTA
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f
244f3e584af1449e430ef900
bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b
, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1
RANI
d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8
b66dd26690a191648ab5d8
dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.05.06 11:23:18
+05'30'
12
[ad_1]
Source link
