ORDER : M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. The petitioner, who is facing trial in Special C.C.No.18 of 2024 for offence under Sections 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam, has filed this Quash Petition. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner was serving as Revenue Inspector in Sholur Firka, The Nilgiris District, there was rampant illegal quarrying activity in and around the area and several Public Interest Litigations filed before this Court and this Court directed the CB-CID to investigate illegal quarrying and to take action against erring officials. Subsequently, the CB-CID recommended departmental action against 35 Revenue Officials including the two Revenue Divisional Officers, Assistant Director of Mines, Assistant Geologist, six Tahsildars, four Revenue Inspectors, six Village Administrative Officers, seven Motor Vehicle Inspectors and four Transport Department officials for failure to detect the illegal quarry. The petitioner played a pivotal role in collecting details and furnishing the same about the miners, thereby she earned wrath of illegal miners who are well and powerfully connected. The learned counsel further submitted that during the inspection in Sholur village, the petitioner found the defacto complainant attempting to break heavy rocks without proper license or permission in survey No.337/2 which belongs to Mrs.Sagundhala, sister-in- law of the defacto complainant. Annoyed over the objection, the defacto complainant in collusion with the respondent projected a trap case as though the petitioner demanded bribe of Rs.2,000/- for issuance of enjoyment certificate for the property which he claims settled by his mother. On the complaint of the defacto complainant, a trap laid and the tainted money thrust on the petitioner. He further submitted that the alleged trap took place on 19.04.2010, but till filing of the charge sheet, the connected documents including the Recovery Mahazar and other seized documents not sent to the Trial Court earlier. The entire statements and documents filed before the Trial Court on 10.04.2012, hence the genuineness of such documents are doubtful. Added to it, the charge sheet filed in the year 2012, but till now no progress in the trial. 3.He further submitted that the respondent in collusion with the defacto complainant to brook vengeance laid a trap without properly ascertaining the genuineness of the complaint and the official witnesses forced to toe the line of the prosecution. Added to it, the charge sheet filed in the year 2012, but till now no progress in the trial. 3.He further submitted that the respondent in collusion with the defacto complainant to brook vengeance laid a trap without properly ascertaining the genuineness of the complaint and the official witnesses forced to toe the line of the prosecution. The respondent failed to consider the motive and how the petitioner effectively curbed the illegal mining in the area and also objected for the defacto complainant in running illegal quarry. He further submitted that since the defacto complainant failed to appear before the Trial Court, the trial not progressed. The petitioner is not in service for more than 14 years and only on 11.12.2023, she was reinstated. At that time, it was found that the petitioner's Service Register and other documents reported lost, unavailable. The petitioner's entire career prospects damaged due to the false case projected by the defacto complainant. On the ground of delay alone, the case is liable to be quashed. Referring to the evidence of PW5, the decoy, the learned counsel submitted that PW5 examined on 29.08.2024, he was cross examined in detail but the prosecution failed to produce the trap money of Rs.2,000/- and his evidence not completed. Hence, the learned counsel prays for quashing. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent strongly denied the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that in this case, the defacto complainant approached the petitioner for issuance of enjoyment certificate since it was insisted by Sholur Primary Agriculture Cooperative Bank for granting agriculture loan to cultivate potatoes. The defacto complainant met the petitioner for enjoyment certificate on 15.04.2010 and the petitioner demanded Rs.2,500/- as bribe. The defacto complainant expressed his inability to give such demanded amount and later, the bribe was reduced to Rs.2,000/- on 16.04.2010. Since the defacto complainant not willing to pay the bribe amount, he lodged a complaint to the respondent and a case in Crime No.4/2010/AC/NI registered. The service of official witnesses enlisted and thereafter, pre-trap proceedings demonstrated to the witnesses. Prior to receipt of the bribe amount, the petitioner informed the defacto complainant that the enjoyment certificate is ready, only after payment of bribe amount, the certificate will be issued. After receipt of the bribe amount, the petitioner signed the certificate and issued the same. The service of official witnesses enlisted and thereafter, pre-trap proceedings demonstrated to the witnesses. Prior to receipt of the bribe amount, the petitioner informed the defacto complainant that the enjoyment certificate is ready, only after payment of bribe amount, the certificate will be issued. After receipt of the bribe amount, the petitioner signed the certificate and issued the same. During the trap proceedings, the petitioner caught red handed and the phenolphthalein test confirmed the same. Thereafter, the petitioner arrested, recovery mahazar prepared, house search conducted and later, she was produced before the remanding Magistrate. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed before the Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore who took the case on file as Special C.C.No.11 of 2012 on 23.05.2012. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the Subordinate Court, Udhagamandalam as per G.O.(Ms.)No.666, dated 10.09.2014 and Special C.C.No.21 of 2015 assigned. In the meanwhile, as per the proceedings of the District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam vide A.No.61/24, dated 14.03.2024, the case was transferred to the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam from the Subordinate Court, Udhagamandalam and renumbered as Special C.C.No.18 of 2024. In this case, the delay is due to the administrative reasons and no delay can be attributed against the prosecution. 5.He further submitted that in this case, so far five witnesses examined as PW1 to PW5 and that the sanction witness (PW1) examined and Ex.P1 marked through him on 25.06.2019. PW2 examined on 17.03.2020 through him Exs.P2 to P9 marked and MO1 to MO4 marked, but the petitioner failed to cross examine PW2. PW3 was examined on 15.02.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner objected to proceed with the case without examining the decoy witness/LW2. Since the decoy witness/LW2 had undergone a major operation in the skull, he was unable to appear before the Court. Later on the insistence of the respondent, LW2 appeared before the Trial Court on 20.06.2023 along with the medical records and sought three months time for examination since he was under severe health hazards. Apart from the administrative reasons, the petitioner also contributed to the delay by not cross examining the witnesses then and there. Now, the decoy/PW5 examined on 29.08.2024 and he was cross examined in detail. In this case, there are totally 14 witnesses cited, of which, examination of five witnesses completed and the remaining witnesses to be examined. Apart from the administrative reasons, the petitioner also contributed to the delay by not cross examining the witnesses then and there. Now, the decoy/PW5 examined on 29.08.2024 and he was cross examined in detail. In this case, there are totally 14 witnesses cited, of which, examination of five witnesses completed and the remaining witnesses to be examined. The witnesses so far examined on the side of the prosecution supported the prosecution case and confirmed the demand, receipt and acceptance of the bribe amount. The trial itself can be completed within a period of four months, hence he prays for dismissal of the Quash Petition. 6.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 7.The primary contention of the petitioner is that she took steps against the illegal quarry for which she was falsely implicated in a trap case at the instance of the defacto complainant. The petitioner was caught red handed in the trap proceedings initiated by the respondent. The decoy and accompanying witness confirmed the demand, receipt and acceptance of the bribe amount by the petitioner and the trap amount recovered from her. Prior to the trap, pre-trap proceedings conducted and the post-trap proceedings recorded in the mahazar. The points raised by the petitioner with regard to motive and false complaint is a matter of fact which has to be decided during trial. 8.As far as the delay is concerned, it appears that there was some administrative delay. The trap laid on 19.04.2010 and investigation completed, charge sheet filed on 10.04.2012. The trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Nilgiris District, was conducted by the concerned Court in Coimbatore District and later, the case transferred to the Subordinate Court, Ooty. In the Nilgiris District, the District Judge holds the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate and later, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court got bifurcated and thereafter, the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are now being tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam. Hence, the case has been presently transferred to the file of the present Trial Court. Earlier, when the case was pending before the Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam, some witnesses examined, but the trial not progressed as expected. Now the case before the present Trial Court is progressing. After filing of this petition, the decoy witness/PW5 examined on 29.08.2024 and cross examined in detail. Earlier, when the case was pending before the Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam, some witnesses examined, but the trial not progressed as expected. Now the case before the present Trial Court is progressing. After filing of this petition, the decoy witness/PW5 examined on 29.08.2024 and cross examined in detail. Now, for examination of remaining witnesses, prosecution seeks four months time. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case is kept pending without substantial progress with inordinate delay and he prays for quashing of trial on the ground of delay. 9.On the facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the delay is on administrative reason which cannot be attributed to the respondent. In this case, PW2 examined on 17.03.2020 and the petitioner not cross examined PW2 and waited for examination of the decoy witness/PW5. It is seen that the decoy/PW5 underwent major surgery on his skull, now recovered and examined on 29.08.2024. Henceforth, there can be no reason for delay and the prosecution also undertakes to produce the witnesses then and there without any delay. 10.Now the learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer for speedy trial and the points raised by the petitioner can be decided during trial. 11.In view of the above, this Court finds that the administrative reason for delay cannot be a ground to quash the case and further the points raised by the petitioner are factual and necessarily to be raised and considered during trial and not in the present quash petition. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in Special C.C.No.18 of 2024. 12.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed and the Trial Court is directed to complete the trial preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.