Disputed Questions of Fact Regarding Demand and Acceptance of Gratification Must Be Adjudicated at Trial

The applicant, a District Panchayat Raj Officer, was apprehended by a trap team from the Vigilance Department on 24.08.2023 for allegedly demanding and accepting an illegal gratification of ₹1,00,000/- from the complainant

The prosecution alleged that tainted currency was recovered from the applicant’s shirt pocket, which tested positive in a sodium carbonate solution

The applicant sought quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., contending that the allegations were motivated by a pending inquiry he was conducting against the complainant

He further argued that he lacked the statutory authority to release Gram Sabha funds, that no dues were pending, and that procedural lapses occurred, such as the failure to record the conversation via the provided voice recorder

1. Whether the basic requirements of an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are made out at this stage?

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings?

Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which requires proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as a sine qua non for the offence

it relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023), which established that while demand and acceptance must be proved, they can be established through direct or circumstantial evidence

principles governing Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., holding that inherent powers should be used sparingly and only when no offence is disclosed on the face of the record or to prevent abuse of process

The court reasoned that since a trap was conducted and tainted currency was recovered, a prima facie case exists

While the applicant raised several defenses—including the lack of an audio recording, the absence of independent witnesses to the demand, and his alleged lack of authority over fund disbursement—the court determined these to be "disputed questions of fact"

The court noted that the prosecution’s assertion regarding the applicant's "supervisory influence" as a senior officer must be tested during trial

procedural irregularities, such as the absence of CCTV footage or the pending FSL reports, go to the weight of the evidence rather than the maintainability of the charge-sheet at the threshold stage

the F.I.R. and investigative material prima facie disclose the commission of an offence and that the defenses raised involve factual disputes that cannot be adjudicated in a quashing petition

The court clarified that its observations are confined to the Section 482 application and shall not prejudice the trial on merits