The court determined that for an effective charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, details must be specific, ensuring the accused is informed effectively for a fair trial.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Both the revisions have been preferred by the revisionists Dinesh Kumar Rana and Basant Kumar Joshi challenging the order passed by the Special Judge, P.C. Act, Haldwani, in Special Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2025 ( State Vs. Dinesh Singh Rana and another ) whereby charges have been framed against both the revisionists to face the trial for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 arising out of first information report dated 09.05.2025 bearing FIR No. 4 of 2025, Police Station – Vigilance Sector, Nainital, Haldwani.

2. Mr. U. K. Uniyal, learned Sr. Advocate for the revisionists argued that impugned order of framing charges suffered from gross illegality impropriety, since the trial court has failed to consider that no case is made out against the revisionists under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. He argued that in order to bring the case within the ambit of of the P.C. Act, it is essential that prosecution ought to have proved that revisionist either “accepts” or “attempts” or “obtain undue advantage” from the complainant in performing his duty or “reward” offer is made by the complainant. He submits that for constituting the offence punishable under of the P.C. Act, there should be demand by public servant beyond reasonable doubt which needs to be proved by the prosecution and only in that eventuality, a presumption can be drawn for obtaining illegal gratification. He submits that the main genesis for implicating the revisionists in the criminal case was that the revisionist Dinesh Kumar Rana Chief Treasury Officer has not signed the file relating to grant of benefit of ACP, though revisionist being the Chief Treasury Officer, has performed his duties diligently and as a matter of fact, complainant filed the complaint due to his personal grudge targeted the revisionists though there was no demand.

3. Apart from this, he submits that SOP for trap was completely ignored and even the voice recording does not contain any demand made by the revisionists, which is an indispensable ingredient of Section 7 of the P.C. Act. He further submits that the complainant himself admitted that shadow witness B. D. Joshi did not accompany Dinesh Singh Rana where the bribe was allegedly exchanged. This witness alleges that he kept the envelope containing the bribe money on file and even he does not alleged any specific demand of bribe or even money, whatsoever. He also submits that even there is no allegation of acceptance and as such, there is no attribution of either demand or acceptance, at the time of trap. He also argued that discharge application of both the revisionists i.e. paper no. 74 Kha and 75 Kha have been rejected on 01.12.2025 by the trial court in a very cursory and causal manner without application of mind.

4. On the other side, Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State, has vehemently opposed the submissions of Mr. U.K. Uniyal, learned Sr. Advocate for the revisionist and submits that there are sufficient material to establish the demand and acceptance and both the revisionists were trapped by vigilance team, therefore, all the arguments as advanced by Mr. U.K. Uniyal, learned Sr. Advocate are in fact the subject matter of trial and have no relevance at this stage.

5. Mr. Sandhu further argued that all the submissions advanced by Mr. U. K. Uniyal, learned Sr. Advocate are thoroughly misconceived, at this stage, since under revisional jurisdiction the Court can only examine the jurisdictional error, correctness , illegality or pr