Prima facie evidence of demand and acceptance warrants continuation of corruption proceedings.

The petitioner, a Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, was placed in charge of the Chikkamagaluru post and took tax-recovery and reassessment action concerning the fourth respondent’s J.P. Bar and Restaurant under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003

The fourth respondent complained that the petitioner had demanded ₹75,000 as illegal gratification in connection with the tax liability.

The complaint led to Crime No. 3/2020; a trap was laid, and the judgment records that the colour test was positive and tainted money was recovered from the petitioner

The petitioner sought to quash the 14 March 2016 order, the complaint dated 4 July 2020, the FIR, and further proceedings, alleging that the complaint and trap were motivated by the tax action

The fourth respondent’s notice was returned with an endorsement that he was deceased

The petition invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

The Court applied a prima facie assessment at the investigation stage: where material indicates demand and acceptance, disputed questions—including whether the alleged demand was connected to misuse of official position and whether the trap was motivated—are matters for investigation and trial, not for determination through a mini-trial in a quashing petition

The Court cited no precedents

The Court found that the material on record prima facie disclosed demand and acceptance, while the trap account included a positive colour test and recovery of the tainted money

It held that the petitioner’s contention that the complaint was retaliatory, and the questions whether the alleged demand involved misuse of official position or the trap was motivated, required investigation and trial

Because deciding those disputed matters at this stage would amount to a mini-trial, the grounds advanced did not justify quashing the proceedings

It left the petitioner at liberty to challenge any adverse report in accordance with law and clarified that its observations would not affect the petitioner’s rights