Kerala High Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs M Gunasekharan on 5 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 324 OF 2022
AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 08.04.2022 IN C.M.P. NO.5 OF 2021 IN C.C.
NO.7 OF 2014 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI)-II,
ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:
M.GUNASEKHARAN
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O E.MANNANGATTY, RESIDING AT CHOLAN STREET, SBS NAGAR,
PONTHOTTAM, VILLUPURAM, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 605602
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.N.SURESH
SMT.DHANUJA VETTATHU
SHRI.MONSY K.V
SHRI.KORAH JOY
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SPE KOCHI,
PIN - 682030
BY ITS PROSECUTOR
BY ADV SHRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER - SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.10.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.REV.PET.NOS.2/2024 AND 5/2024, THE COURT ON
05.11.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2022 IN CRL.M.P.NO.212 OF 2020 IN C.C.
NO.7 OF 2014 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI)-
II, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
ACB - COCHIN, KALOOR KATHIRKADAVU ROAD, KALOOR P.O.,
KOCHI, PIN - 680017
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BY ADV SHRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER - SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.2:
J ASHOK SHIVARAM
AGED 66 YEARS
PLOT NO. 39, DEFENCE COLONY, LAKSHMI NAGAR, HINDALAGA
POST, GANESHPURAM, BELGAM, KARNATAKA, PIN - 591108
BY ADVS.
SHRI.PRAKASH.P.GEORGE
SHRI.SADER E.REAZ
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.10.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.REV.PET.324/2022 AND 5/2024, THE COURT ON
05.11.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 5 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2022 IN CRL.M.P.NO.5/2021 IN C.C. NO.7
OF 2014 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE (SPE/CBI)-II,
ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
ACB - COCHIN, KALOOR KATHIRKADAVU ROAD, KALOOR. P.O.
KOCHI, PIN - 680017
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BY ADV SHRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER,SREELAL N.WARRIER,
SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
(CBI)
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.4:
M GUNASEKHARAN
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O E. MANNANGATTY, RESIDING AT COCHIN STREET, SBS NAGAR,
PONTHOTTAM VILLUPURAM, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 605602
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.N.SURESH
SHRI.YEDU KRISHNA S.
SMT.AISWARYA UNNIKRISHNAN
SMT.INDU MENON M.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.10.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.REV.PET NOS.324/2022 AND 2/2024, THE COURT
ON 05.11.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024
4
"C.R"
COMMON ORDER
Dated this the 5th day of November, 2025 Crl.Rev.Pet. No.324/2022 has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.' for short] by the 4 th accused in C.C. No.7/2014 on the files of the Court of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam, challenging the common order dated 08.04.2022 in Crl.M.P. No.5/2021 along with Crl.M.P. Nos.212/2020 and 213/2020 in the above case, whereby the discharge plea at the instance of the 4th accused, who alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as 'P.C. Act, 1988', for short] was dismissed by the learned Special Judge.
2. Crl.Rev.Pet. No.5/2024 has been filed by the Central Bureau of Investigating (CBI) challenging the same common order, whereby the 4th accused (the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P. No.324/2022) was discharged for the Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024 5 offence punishable under Section 14 of the P.C. Act, 1988.
3. Crl.Rev.Pet. No.2/2024 is also at the instance of the CBI, challenging the same common order in Crl.M.P. No.212/2020 in the above case, whereby the 2 nd accused was discharged for the offences punishable under Sections 14 and 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988.
4. Heard Sri.T.N.Suresh, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in Crl.Rev.Pet. No.324/2022 as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor, in detail. Also heard Sri.Prakash P. George, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2/2024. Perused the common order impugned and relevant records available.
5. Parties in these criminal revision petitions shall be referred as 'accused' and 'prosecution', hereafter.
6. In this matter, the prosecution allegation against the 2nd accused is that, the 2nd accused habitually abetted the 1st accused in committing offences under sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the P.C. Act, 1988, while the 1 st accused was employed in FACT as Chief Sales Manager, Chief Distribution Manager, Dy.General Manager (Fertiliser), DGM(Finance), GM(Finance) Co-ord. and G.M. (Corporate Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024 6 Finance) Co-ord. at Udyogamandal, by habitually paying him bribes for a total amount of Rs.50,000/- in 6 installments at the rate of Rs.5000/- each on 24.10.2005 and 24.02.2006, Rs.10,000/- each on 24.02.2009, 21.09.2009, 07.09.2010 and 09.09.2011 through the SB account No.30012379332 of the 1st accused held at SBI, Palarivattom branch. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 14 read with 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988, by the 2nd accused.
7. Similarly, the 4th accused alleged to have habitually abetted the 1st accused committing offence under sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the PC Act, 1988, while the 1st accused was employed in FACT as DGM (Finance), GM (Finance) Co-ord. And GM(Corporate Finance) Co-ord. at Udyogamandal, by habitually paying him bribes for a total amount of Rs.1,01,000/- in 8 installments at the rate of Rs.5000/- each on 05.11.2007 and 23.01.2008, Rs.10,000/- on 30.11.2007, Rs.6000/- on 10.09.2008, Rs.17,000/- on 15.10.2008, Rs.15,000/- on 21.01.2009, Rs.20,000/- on 21.12.2009 and Rs.23,000/- on 26.09.2010 through the SB account No. 30012379332 of the 1 st Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024 7 accused held at SBI, Palarivattom branch. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable Section 14 read with 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988, by the 4 th accused.
8. According to the learned counsel for the 4th accused, even though the allegation against the 4 th accused is confined to payment of Rs.1,01,000/- in eight installments, the prosecution did not produce any documents to substantiate the same in full. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 4 th accused that, as per document No.8 produced by the prosecution, three payments made in the name of the 1st accused, to the tune of Rs.17,000/- on 15.10.2008, Rs.6,000/- on 10.09.2008 and Rs.15,000/- on 21.01.2009, has been produced by the prosecution to show that the said remittance was by the 4 th accused. According to the learned counsel for the 4 th accused, as per document No.72 the Examination Report/Opinion of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, opinion No.9 would suggest that Q33 and Q38 pertaining to D8 series documents are written by one and the same person. However, the learned counsel zealously Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024 8 argued that, merely relying on the expert opinion alone, criminal culpability could not be fastened against the 4 th accused for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988. In this connection, he has placed the order dated 17.03.2020 in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.926/2019, whereby this Court, while discharging the accused in the said case, who alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988, observed in paragraph Nos.8 and 9, as under:
8. Detailed statement was filed by the prosecution, wherein, it has been asserted that the fact of deposit of Rs.10,000/- by the second accused in the account of the first accused is established by the handwriting identification and by forensic examination. It is pertinent to note that, this is the only solitary piece of material unearthed by the prosecution as against the petitioner. In the light of this, CBI was directed to file a statement to place on record the materials which they relied to support the allegation against the revision petitioner other than the factum of deposit of Rs.10,000/-. A statement was filed by the CBI, wherein, CBI has taken a stand that, this is the solitary material available against the second Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024 9 accused. However, the prosecution allegation was that, the amount was deposited pursuant to the conspiracy hatched between the accused persons, there is no other relationship or transactions between the accused to make the payment other than by way of bribe.
9. Materials on record indicate that, there was only one payment allegedly made by the second accused in the account of the first accused. None of the witnesses has stated that, the amount was a consideration received by the second accused from any dealers to whom favours were shown by the first accused. There is absolutely no material to indicate that the first accused had entered into a conspiracy with the second accused. There is nothing on record to show that the amount so deposited was not the source of income of the first accused or that, it was the money handed over by any other person who is the beneficiary to the dealings of the first accused. No presumption can also be arrived at, at this stage, by assuming that the petitioner had no other transaction with the first accused. Hence, in the absence of any other materials than the solitary deposit made by the second accused in the account of the second accused, I feel that, no prima facie case can be levelled against the second accused.
Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024 10
9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI resisted this contention and submitted that, apart from document No.8 series supported by document No.72, the statements of CW1 and CW17 are available against accused No.4. Therefore, even otherwise the ratio in the order dated 17.03.2020 in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.926/2019 has no application in the present case. It is also pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that, as far as the 2nd accused is concerned, the allegation of the prosecution is that, he had paid bribe to the tune of Rs.50,000/- in six installments through the SB account of the 1st accused.
10. The document No.1, SBI Madhuranagar branch letter, document No.6 receipt memo dated 27.08.2014 along with voucher, document No.7 SBH Nehru Ganj branch letter dated 14.12.12 along with voucher, document No.9 SBI Nellore Town branch letter, document No. 12 and 13 SBI Palarivatom branch statements, document No.14 receipt memo of SBH Nehruganj branch etc. are there to prove the alleged payments made into the account of the 1st accused by or at the behest of the 2 nd accused. However, document No.72 Central Forensic Science Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024 11 Laboratory, Hyderabad examination report along with specimen signatures of the 2 nd accused was produced in order to impress upon the court that the 2nd accused had actually written the pay in slips. Added to that there are approver statements recorded under section 306(4) Cr.P.C. of witnesses Shri.Ravishankar and Shri.Murali Mohan Raju.
11. Adverting to Section 14 of the P.C. Act, 1988, it is argued by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that, when the Special Court found that there are evidence against the 4th accused that he made three payments as bribe to the 1st accused and the 2nd accused had made six payments as bribe to the 1st accused, the Special Judge went wrong in holding that the 2nd and 4th accused did not commit the offence punishable under Section 14 of the P.C. Act, 1988. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, prima facie, the offence punishable under Section 14 of the P.C. Act, 1988, also is made out as against accused Nos.2 and 4.
12. Resisting this contention, the learned counsel for the 4th accused submitted that, in order to substantiate offence of habitual committing of offences under Sections Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024 12 8, 9 and 12, there shall be previous cases of the same nature. Mere allegation in one case, would not suffice the requirement.
13. First of all, I shall address, whether the offence under Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988, is made out as against 4th accused, so that the discharge refused by the Special Court for the offences under Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988, is justifiable.
14. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer Sections 12 and 14 of the P.C. Act, 1988. Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988 reads as under:
12. Punishment for abetment of offences defined in section 7 or 11.-
Whoever abets any offence punishable under section 7 or section 11 whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than [three years] but which may extend to [seven years] and shall also be liable to fine.
15. Section 14 of the P.C. Act, 1988 reads as under:
14. Habitual committing of offence under sections 8, 9 and 12.- Whoever Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024 13 habitually commits,-
(a) an offence punishable under section 8 or section 9; or
(b) an offence punishble under section 12, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than [five years] but which may extend to [ten years] and shall also be liable to fine.
16. In India, a habitual offender has different meaning and dimensions based on the interpretations of various statutes. The P.C. Act, 1988, does not define the term 'habitual offender' embodied in Section 14 of the P.C. Act, 1988. When P.C. Act, 1988 was amended as per the P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2018, Section 14 has been worded differently from Section 14 of the P.C. Act, 1988. As per the amended provision, Section 14 deals with punishment for habitual offender. It has been provided that, whoever convicted of an offence under this Act (P.C. Act, 2018) subsequently commits an offence punishable under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than five years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Thus, Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024 14 habitual offender under the P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2018, is a convicted person.
17. As per the Kerala Habitual Offenders Act, 1960, a person, having been convicted for any of the scheduled offences, is by reason of such conviction or of the circumstances connected therein is declared to be habitual offender under the Act. Thus, as per the provisions of the Kerala Habitual Offenders Act, 1960, a person does not automatically becomes a habitual offender just because he committed crimes repeatedly, instead he must be declared as such person by the procedure laid down by the Act.
18. In the decision reported in [AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1766] Dhanji Ram Sharma v. Superintendent of Police, North Dist., Delhi Police and Others , when the Apex Court considered Rules 23.9(2) and 23.4(3)(b) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, it was observed in paragraph No.7 as under:
7. A habitual offender or a person habitually addicted to crime is one who is a criminal by habit or by disposition formed by repetition of crimes. Reasonable belief of the police officer that the suspect is a habitual Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024 15 offender or is a person habitually addicted to crime is sufficient to justify action under Rr. 23.4 (3) (b) and 23.9 (2). Mere belief is not sufficient. The belief must be reasonable, it must be based on reasonable grounds. The suspect may or may not have been convicted of any crime. Even apart from any conviction, there may be reasonable grounds for believing that he is a habitual offender.
19. In the decision reported in [(1984) 3 Supreme Court Cases 14] Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar and Others, when the Apex Court dealt with preventive detention under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 with reference to Sections 2(d)(i), (ii) and (iv) and 12, held in paragraph Nos.13 to 15 as under:
13. I find it difficult to share the view that whereas under sub-clause (iii) or sub-clause (v) of Section 2(d) a single act or omission referred to in them may be enough to treat the person concerned as an 'anti-social element', in the case of sub-clause (i), sub-clause (ii) or sub-
clause (iv) because of the word 'habitually' there should be a repetition of same class of acts or omissions referred to in sub clause (i), sub-clause (ii) or in sub-clause (iv) by the Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024 16 person concerned to treat him as an 'anti-social element'.
14. I also do not see why Section 12(2) of the Act should be confined in its operation against habitual criminals who have a certain number of prior convictions for offences of the 'character' specified. The definition of 'anti- social element' in Section 2(d) of the Act nowhere requires that there should be a number of prior convictions of a person in respect of offences of a particular type. I cannot also share the view that the commission of an act referred to in one of the sub-clause (i), sub- clause (ii) or sub-clause (iv) of Section 2(d) and any other act or omission referred to in any other of the said sub-clauses would not be sufficient to treat a person as an 'anti-social element. Further, I do not think it is correct to say that merely because there was an acquittal of such a person, the detaining authority cannot take the act complained of leading to his trial into consideration. It may be that the trial of a dangerous person may end in an acquittal for paucity of evidence due to unwillingness of witnesses to come forward and depose against him out of fright. If a person with criminal tendencies consistently or persistently or repeatedly commits or attempts to commit or Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024 17 abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI dealing with offences affecting human body or Chapter XVII dealing with offences against property of the Indian Penal Code, there is no reason why he should not be considered to be an 'anti-social element.
15. It is not difficult to conceive of a person who by himself as a member or leader of a gang habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. It however does not follow that because of the word 'habitually' in sub-clause (i), sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iv), there should be a repetition of same class of acts or omissions referred to in sub-clause (i), sub-clause (ii) or in sub-clause (iv) by the person concerned before he can be treated to be an anti-social element and detained by the District Magistrate under Section 12(2) of the Act. In my view, it is not required that the nature or character of the anti-social acts should be the same or similar. There may be commission or attempt to commit or abetment of diverse nature of acts constituting offences under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. What has to be 'repetitive' are the anti-social acts.
Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024 18
20. So the definition of habitual offender may vary according to circumstances with reference to the scheme of the legislation. Since the P.C. Act, 1988, does not define habitual offender and the Amended provision under Section 14 deals with punishment for habitual offender, in relation to a person already convicted of an offence under the P.C. Act, in order to fasten criminal culpability on an accused under Section 14 of the P.C. Act, 1988, on finding that he habitually committed offences under Sections 8, 9 and 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988, mere allegation alone would not suffice and there must be previous conviction for any one of the said offences. Otherwise, the offence under Section 14 of the P.C. Act, 1988, could not be attributed against an accused.
21. In the instant case, Section 14 of the P.C. Act, 1988, was alleged by the prosecution on the premise that, accused Nos.2 and 4 paid bribe to the 1 st accused repeatedly. The prosecution has no case that, the 2 nd and 4th accused were convicted for the offences under Sections 8 or 9 or 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988. In view of the legal position, in the instant case, it could not be held that, Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024 19 prima facie, accused Nos.2 and 4 committed offence punishable under Section 14 of the P.C. Act, 1988, warranting trial. Therefore, the finding of the Special Court that the 4th accused did not commit offence punishable under Section 14 of the P.C. Act, 1988, and subsequent discharge of the 4th accused for the said offence is only to be justified.
22. Coming to the challenge raised by the 4 th accused in Crl.Rev.Pet. No.324/2022, it is emphatically clear that as per document No.8 series, the 4th accused paid illegal gratification to the 1 st accused on three occasions, i.e. Rs.17,000/- on 15.10.2008, Rs.6,000/- on 10.09.2008 and Rs.15,000/- on 21.01.2009. In order to support this contention, the prosecution produced receipts showing remittance by the 4th accused in the name of the 1st accused as substantive evidence, supported by the statement of CW17 and also the bank statements let in by the prosecution, supporting the allegations. In addition to that, the FSL report also has been produced. Although, it is argued by the learned counsel for the 4 th accused that, the FSL report is without reasons, the FSL report would show Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024 20 that the opinion is supported by reasons, though not so lengthy. Therefore, the validity of the FSL report also is a matter of evidence and the same cannot be considered at the pre-trial stage. Contra argument at the instance of the learned counsel for the 4th accused is found to be unsustainable. Therefore, at this stage, it is too premature to hold that the 4th accused not committed the offence punishable under Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988, so as to discharge him for the said offence. Therefore, the Special Court rightly found that the discharge plea at the instance of the 4th accused insofar as Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988 is concerned, would not succeed.
23. Coming to the discharge of the 2nd accused for the offences punishable under Sections 12 and 14 of the P.C. Act, 1988, is concerned, for the reasons herein above extracted, the discharge of the 2nd accused for the offence punishable under Section 14 of the P.C. Act, 1988, is only to be justified. Adverting to the discharge of the 2 nd accused for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988, is concerned, the point argued by the learned Special Public Prosecutor is that disciplinary proceedings Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024 21 was initiated at the instance of the 1st accused against the 2nd accused and in order to avoid the same, the 2 nd accused paid bribe to the 1st accused, as could be seen from document Nos.1, 7 and 9 (bank letters), document Nos.6 and 14 receipt memos, document Nos.12 and 13 bank account statements of the 1st accused, document No.72 FSL report. It is pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that, the Special Court erred in assuming that the said documents would not prove the prosecution case as to demand and payment of illegal gratification by the 2 nd accused to the 1st accused. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd accused justified the order on the submission that none of the offences made out against the 2nd accused.
24. On a perusal of the common order impugned, the prosecution has specific case that the 2 nd accused paid Rs.50,000/- in 6 installments at the rate of Rs.5000/- each on 24.10.2005 and 24.02.2006, Rs.10,000/- each on 24.02.2009, 21.09.2009, 07.09.2010 and 09.09.2011 to the 1st accused through the SB account No.30012379332 of the 1st accused held at SBI, Palarivattom branch. Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024 22
25. The learned Special Judge, while addressing the discharge plea of the 2nd accused, found that page No.77 of document No.36 produced by the prosecution would show that there was recommendation by the 1 st accused for closing the departmental action against the 2 nd accused and as per page No.78, the said proceeding was closed. It is relevant to note that the learned Special Judge, referring to document No.167, 9 and 14 produced by the prosecution found that, there was transfer of money from the side of the 2nd accused to the 1st accused. That apart, document No.13 is a statement of account of the 1st accused, evidenced by the testimony of CW1 and others. Despite having these documents, the Special Judge found that there was virtually little scope for a successful prosecution as far as the allegations against the 2 nd accused is concerned. At the same time, the learned Special Judge observed that, it could not be stated that there would exist even a grave suspicion towards commission of offences alleged against the 2nd accused.
26. Going by the prosecution records referred by the prosecution and also referred by the learned Special Judge, Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024 23 the finding of the Special Court that, there is virtually little scope of successful prosecution by itself is not a ground to allow discharge. However, in the absence of prima facie case or a grave suspicion, it is permissible for the trial court to discharge the accused, even in cases where a mere suspicion is forthcoming.
27. On perusal of the prosecution records, I have referred in particular viz. document Nos.62, 69, 77, 167, 9, 14 and 13 supported by the evidence of CW1 and the bank officials, it could be gathered that the 2 nd accused also paid illegal gratification to the 1st accused on six occasions, as discussed, unlike the facts of the case dealt in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.926/2019 placed by the learned counsel for the 4th accused. Therefore, the ingredients to attract offence punishable under Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988, against the 2nd accused are made out prima facie or a grave suspicion could be found. Therefore, the finding of the learned Special Judge that even no grave suspicion could be found, cannot be justified. Thus, Crl.Rev.Pet. No.2/2024 is liable to succeed in part.
28. In view of the above discussion, Crl.Rev.Pet. Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024 24 No.324/2022 stands dismissed and the order of the Special Judge not discharging the 4th accused for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988 is confirmed.
29. Crl.Rev.Pet. No.5/2024 also stands dismissed and the order of the Special Judge discharging the 4 th accused for the offence punishable under Section 14 of the P.C. Act, 1988, is confirmed.
30. Crl.Rev.Pet. No.2/2024 stands allowed in part. The order of the Special Judge discharging the 2 nd accused for the offence punishable under Section 14 of the P.C. Act, 1988, is confirmed, while setting aside the discharge of the 2nd accused for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988, with direction to the 2 nd accused to surrender before the Special Court on 19.11.2025 to undergo trial for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988.
31. It is specifically ordered that, the observations made in this order are for the purpose of considering challenge against the impugned common order and the same have no binding effect during the trial and the Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024 25 Special Court shall decide the case on merits, after adducing evidence.
32. Interim order of stay, if any, stands vacated. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Special Court, forthwith, for information and further steps.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE SK Crl.R.P. Nos. 324 of 2022 and 2 & 5 of 2024 26 APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 324/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 ORDER DATED 08/04/2022 IN CMP NO: 5/2021 IN CC NO: 7/2014