ORDER : A. Badharudeen, J. Accused in C.C.No.8/2025 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode, has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , seeking the following prayer: To call for the records leading upto Annexure-A final report in C.C.No.8 of 2025 and Annexure-B first information report in V.C.No.02/2024/KKD on the file of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode and quash the same and issue appropriate other orders or directions to the Investigating agency, in the interest of justice. 2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the documents as well as the decisions placed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. 3. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 2018’ hereinafter), by the petitioner/accused. The prosecution allegation is that, one Sri.Dhanesh Kumar T.P., S/o.Velayudhan, approached the Vigilance Department at 9.00 hrs. on 12.02.2024 and lodged a complaint. The same was entrusted to the Sub Inspector (Grade) Sri.Shinil Kumar. On verification of the averments in the complaint, pre- verification report was filed by Sri.Shinil Kumar and as per which, it was found that the allegations in the complaint are true. As per the pre-verification report, it has been found that the accused Sri.Sanu P.K. working as Village Assistant, Panniyankara Village, has been in the habit of accepting bribe for the purpose of doing service from the Village Office. The complaint lodged by the complainant would show that Sri.Ameer A.P., who is the friend of the complainant, was entitled to get a house under the ‘Punargeham’ project of the Fisheries Department, on his application, for which, the necessary land required to be identified. Accordingly, 3.82 cents of land in Re.Sy.No.21/11-230 was to be purchased by Sri.Ameer A.P., at the instance of the Fisheries Department. The complainant had active role in the transfer of the property and accordingly, his mobile phone number was recorded in the Village Office. Accordingly, 3.82 cents of land in Re.Sy.No.21/11-230 was to be purchased by Sri.Ameer A.P., at the instance of the Fisheries Department. The complainant had active role in the transfer of the property and accordingly, his mobile phone number was recorded in the Village Office. On 08.02.2024 when the complainant reached the Village Office and noticed that the application for measurement of the said property was at the hands of the Village Field Assistant Sri.Sanu P.K. Accordingly, he met Sri.Sanu P.K. at 4.00 p.m. on 08.02.2024, he agreed to come to the field and demanded Rs.500/- as bribe in this regard. Thereafter, the complainant had taken the Village Field Assistant Sri.Sanu P.K. as pillion rider in his scooter and reached the field and the property was measured. Then, he was brought back to the Village Office. Then, Sri.Sanu P.K. informed that he would prepare the documents and when the complainant would be called, he would come along with Rs.500/- as bribe. The above allegations in the complaint were subjected to pre-verification by the Deputy Police Superintendent, Vigilance, Kozhikode. On finding merit in the pre-verification report, FIR was registered as 02/2024/KKD under Section 7 (a) of the PC Act, 2018 at 9.30 hrs. on 12.02.2024 and thereafter, moved for trap proceedings. As per the mahazar, it has been stated that as part of the proceedings for trap, phenolphthalein powder was applied to a 500 rupee note entrusted by the complainant and in turn, the same was given back to the complainant with direction to entrust the same to the Village Field Assistant/accused and as per the mahazar, it has been stated that thereafter, the accused accepted the bribe and as per the final report, the same was accepted at 16.05 hrs. on 12.02.2024 and thereafter, the accused was restrained and the said note, description of the same has been stated in the mahazar, was recovered from the accused. 4. While canvassing irregularity and illegality in the procedure, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in this matter, as per the mahazar, the money was accepted at 15.45 hrs. on 12.02.2024 and in the final report, it is stated as 16.05 hrs. This anomaly could be noticed from the mahazar and the final report. 4. While canvassing irregularity and illegality in the procedure, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in this matter, as per the mahazar, the money was accepted at 15.45 hrs. on 12.02.2024 and in the final report, it is stated as 16.05 hrs. This anomaly could be noticed from the mahazar and the final report. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, as per the prosecution records, trap proceedings started at 3.45 p.m., on 12.02.2024, pursuant to registration of FIR at 9.30 hrs. on 12.02.2024. Thus, FIR was registered before detection of crime and the said procedure is illegal and the same would go to the root of the matter. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, registering FIR prior to commission of the crime would indicate mala fide intention of the Vigilance Police to implicate the petitioner in this crime with ulterior motives. Therefore, the entire proceedings arose out of an illegal FIR, are liable to be quashed. 5. The learned senior counsel also placed decision of the Apex Court in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab reported in [2025 KHC OnLine 6219] with reference to paragraph Nos.12 and 13 and same read as under: 12. Further it is seen that, S.7 speaks of the "attempt" to obtain a bribe as being in itself an offence. Mere demand or solicitation, therefore, by a public servant amounts to commission of an offence under S.7 of the P.C. Act. The word "attempt" is to imply no more than a mere solicitation, which, again may be made as effectually in implicit or in explicit terms. 13. Actual exchange of a bribe is not an essential requirement to be prosecuted under this law. Further, those public servants, who do not take a bribe directly, but, through middlemen or touts, and those who take valuable things from a person with whom they have or are likely to have official dealings, are also punishable as per S.10 and S.11 of the Act 1988 respectively. 6. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that, in this case, complaint was lodged regarding demand of bribe by the accused at 9.00 hrs. on 12.02.2024 and the allegation in the complaint is that the accused demanded bribe as on 08.02.2024. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, thereafter, pre-verification was conducted and the allegation was found to be genuine. on 12.02.2024 and the allegation in the complaint is that the accused demanded bribe as on 08.02.2024. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, thereafter, pre-verification was conducted and the allegation was found to be genuine. Accordingly, FIR was registered at 9.30 hrs. on 12.02.2024. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that trap proceedings would be after registering the FIR, since demand for bribe itself is an offence under Section 7 (a) of the PC Act, 2018. Therefore, there is no illegality in registering FIR at 9.30 hrs. It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that, earlier, the petitioner herein filed Crl.M.C.No.7997/2024 seeking quashment of FIR, raising the same grounds. As per order dated 15.10.2024, this Court disposed of the same with direction to file final report and liberty given to the petitioner to re-agitate the contentions raised in the said Crl.M.C. and the same were kept open. 7. Going by the decision placed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, it is not in dispute that ‘attempt to obtain bribe’ itself is an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, 2018, since mere demand or solicitation by a public servant amounts to an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, 2018. Going by the complaint lodged by the complainant at 9.00 hrs. on 12.02.2024, he disclosed demand of Rs.500/- as bribe by the accused on 08.02.2024 before visiting the field for measuring the property and again demand was made to pay bribe after measuring the property. If so, registration of a crime alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 7 (a) of the PC Act, 2018, merely accepting the allegation of demand for bribe would only to be justified. 8. It is true, as pointed out by the learned senior counsel regarding the time of acceptance of bribe by the accused, there is an anomaly in the mahazar and the final report. As per the mahazar, the acceptance of bribe is stated as 15.45 hrs., whereas, in the final report, the same is 16.05 hrs. But that is not a ground to quash the final report and the said anomaly can be pointed out during trial by the accused, as per law. As already discussed, when bribe was demanded on 08.02.2024, the complainant approached the Vigilance Department at 9.00 hrs. But that is not a ground to quash the final report and the said anomaly can be pointed out during trial by the accused, as per law. As already discussed, when bribe was demanded on 08.02.2024, the complainant approached the Vigilance Department at 9.00 hrs. on 12.02.2024 and after having a pre-verification and finding merit in the allegation, FIR was registered at 9.30 hrs. It is true that the accused was arrested as part of trap proceedings only after registration of the FIR. Normally, as pointed out by the learned senior counsel, when a crime is registered without finding commission of any offence, the same is an illegality and the same also would indicate mala fides on the part of the Investigating Officer to implicate an accused without getting information regarding commission of a cognizable offence. But the said normal rule of criminal jurisprudence must be read as an exception when PC Act offence, where demand for bribe is the allegation, making a cognizable offence, for which, registration of FIR is legally permissible. Therefore, even before the trap proceedings, on finding prima facie that there was a demand for bribe, registration of FIR is legally permissible, since demand itself is an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, 2018. Thereafter, during trap proceedings, the accused accepted the bribe. Having held so, there is no anomaly in this case in registering FIR at 9.30 hrs. on 12.02.2024 in a case where the bribe money was demanded by the accused on 08.02.2024 and the demanded bribe was accepted by the accused. In such view of the matter, challenge against registration of FIR would necessarily fail. In the result, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise his contentions during trial, as per law. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the trial court, for information and compliance.