IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL C482 No. 304 of 2011 Govind Ram …………..Applicant. Vs State of Uttarakhand and another. …………..Respondents. Present : Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Nandan Arya, Assistant Government Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand. Brief facts of the matter are that on 15.11.2002 one Ved Prakash Arya filed a written complaint before the Deputy Collector, Pauri Garhwal stating that the applicant is demanding from him a sum of ` 3,000/- as bribe for mutation in the revenue records. Subsequently, Tehsildar Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal along with the informant and one public witness made a trap and caught the applicant along with ` 3,000/-. Thereafter, a First Information Report was lodged against the applicant under Section 13 (i) (ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On 13.2.2003 Deputy Superintendent of Police (Circle Officer) Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal investigated the matter and submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant under Section 7 / 13 (i) (ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act before the Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal. All the same, in view of the Notifications dated 24.5.2005 and 5.5.2008 issued by the Government of Uttarakhand (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), jurisdiction in such matters lies before the District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun and not before the Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal. Consequently, an application was moved by the applicant stating that District 2 and Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal does not have jurisdiction but only Sessions Judge, Dehradun has the jurisdiction. Consequently, the learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal vide order dated 7.3.2011 has transferred the matter to the District & Sessions Judge, Dehradun. It is this order, which has been challenged by the applicant. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the applicant before this Court is that once the charges have been framed by a wrong Court, the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. The argument of the applicant is wholly misconceived. The applicant was charged under the Prevention and Corruption Act and thereafter a charge sheet was filed against him. The only lacuna was that the charge-sheet was filed in a wrong court, which has now been remedied by the impugned order. The entire argument of the applicant is based on a misconception of law and therefore no interference is being made by this Court. The instant C482 petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant Sri Lokendra Dobhal has stated that since the matter is very old, direction be given to decide the matter expeditiously. It is hence directed that if an application is moved before the appropriate Court, it is expected that the same shall be expedited as trial in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, in any case needs to be expedited. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 19.4.2011 Rathour