Kerala High Court
K.K.Salim vs State Of Kerala on 8 September, 2025
2025:KER:66551
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 17TH BHADRA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 10940 OF 2023
CRIME NO.VC.01/2021/SRT/2021 OF VACB SOUTHERN RANGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:
K.K.SALIM
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.KASIM KUNJU, HOUSE NO.15, FAYAS VILLA, MAITHRI NAGAR,
SREEKARYAM, PANGAPPARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695017
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
SMT.BREJITHA UNNIKRISHNAN
SHRI.SUDEESH K.E.
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 BIJU.C.P
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, 'HARITHA', VELLOORKONAM.P.O.,
NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695541
BY ADV SHRI.ASHIK TOM
SR PP VACB - REKHA S, SPL PP VACB - RAJESH A
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.08.2025,
THE COURT ON 08.09.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:66551
Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023
2
"C.R"
ORDER
Dated this the 8th day of September, 2025 This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash Annexure-1 FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No.VC.01/2021/CRE of VACB, Southern Range, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner herein is the 3 rd accused in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the documents placed by both sides.
3. Parties in this petition shall be referred as 'accused Nos.1, 2 and 3' and 'prosecution', hereafter.
4. Short facts:- The defacto complainant holds a contract license under the Kerala Forest Department. He was engaged in the contract work of the Forest Department at Attingal in Thiruvananthapuram Range. In 2020, the complainant was awarded the contract for the 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 3 maintenance of compensatory afforestation at Kerala University Campus, Karyavattam, in lieu of tree felling for the Vizhinjam International Seaport Project. Smt.Divya Rose, the 1st accused, being the Range Officer of the Social Forestry Division, was responsible for passing the bills submitted for the work undertaken by the complainant. The complainant filed a complaint before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau on 15.08.2021, alleging that he has completed the work of compensatory afforestation at the Kerala University Campus in Karyavattam by June, 2020 and he was entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- towards the work. Thereafter, he approached the 1st accused for passing the bill. The 1st accused demanded Rs.70,000/- as a bribe for clearing the bill. The 1st accused instructed the complainant to handover the money to Sri.K.K.Salim, the 3 rd accused, a forester attached to her office. On 11.08.2021, the complainant reached the office of the 1st accused at PTP Nagar and requested her to clear the bills before Onam. However, accused Nos.1 and 3 demanded Rs.70,000/- for 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 4 clearing the bill. He was also instructed to pay a part of the amount to Sri.Ragesh, the 2 nd accused, another officer of the department. Based on the complaint preferred by the complainant, FIR was registered. At 15.00 hours on 16.08.2021, the Vigilance Officials, accompanied by the complainant, arrived at the Range Forest Office, Thiruvananthapuram at PTP Nagar. The 1 st accused was not there. The complainant contacted the 1 st accused over the phone. She instructed the complainant to contact the 3rd accused. The complainant handed over the 'trap money' of Rs.70,000/- to the 3 rd accused and he was arrested along with the 'trap money'. The Vigilance Officials conducted a phenolphthalein test, which turned positive. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as 'P.C. Act' for short], by the accused.
5. While canvasing quashment of the proceedings as against the 3rd accused, it is argued by the learned counsel for the 3rd accused that, as per Annexure-4 order 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 5 dated 07.11.2023 in Crl.M.C. No.2384/2022, when the 1 st accused, Smt.Divya S. Rose, approached this Court to quash the FIR, this Court considered the matter in detail and as per Annexure-4 order, the FIR and further proceedings against the 1st accused were quashed. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the 3 rd accused that, challenging Annexure-4 order, the prosecution filed S.L.P. No.3168/2024 and as per Annexure-6 order dated 11.03.2024, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the S.L.P. and confirmed Annexure-4 order. It is specifically pointed out by the learned counsel for the 3rd accused that, in this matter, as per Annexure-3, as on 30.06.2021, the 3 rd accused, who was the Section Forest Officer during the relevant time, considered the works done by the complainant and found short falls in the works carried out by the complainant and accordingly, he reported the same to the Range Forest Officer that the work was not completed. Thereafter, the complainant approached the 1 st accused, the higher official and bypassing Annexure-3, there were deals between the 1st accused and the allegation now urged by the prosecution is that, the 1 st and 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 6 2nd accused demanded bribe and the complainant reached the office, on the date of trap, along with the money entrusted by the Vigilance, smeared with phenolphthalein, to entrust the same to the accused and the same was accepted by the 3rd accused.
6. According to the learned counsel for the 3rd accused, in the First Information Statement given by the complainant, he stated that Smt.Divya Rose (the 1 st accused) demanded Rs.70,000/- before Onam and then only the bills pertaining to work carried out by the complainant would be encashed and also demanded money for Sri.Ragesh. He argued further that, even though in the first part of the statement, demand of bribe was alleged against Divya S. Rose, there is recital in the FIS that accused Nos.1 and 3 demanded bribe on 11.08.2021. However, the FIS in its entirety would show that the demand of bribe was at the instance of Smt.Divya S. Rose. It is pointed out further that, the additional statement recorded as that of the complainant would show that, at 12.00 hours on 16.08.2021, as part of trap, when the complainant along with the Vigilance party reached the 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 7 Social Forest Range Office, Thiruvananthapuram and waited for Smt.Divya Rose (the 1st accused), since she was not available in her cabin. When he enquired to the 3 rd accused, he informed that she went outside. The complainant also given statement that he waited there to see Smt.Divya S. Rose and when he could not found her presence in the office, he telephoned her and informed that the money demanded was brought. Then, Smt.Divya Rose instructed him to see the 3rd accused and accordingly, he met the 3rd accused, as instructed by Smt.Divya Rose. The complainant informed the 3rd accused that, Smt.Divya Rose instructed him to meet the 3rd accused and informed about the money he brought. In the additional statement, it is stated further that, the 3rd accused also asked the complainant that whether the money demanded by Smt.Divya Rose was brought and pursuant to that the said money was handed over to the 3rd accused. According to the learned counsel for the 3rd accused, in this case, as on 30.06.2021, on noticing that the work carried out by the complainant was incomplete, the 3rd accused reported the same to his higher official through Annexure-3 communication. In such a 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 8 situation, the likelihood of demand of bribe by the 3 rd accused is impossible. He also submitted that, Annexure-3 was acted upon by the Range Forest Officer.
7. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, no communication regarding action taken by the Range Forest Officer came to the notice of the prosecution.
8. Anyhow, at the time of argument, photocopy of letter dated 01.07.2021 issued by the Range Forest Officer to the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Social Forestry Division, Thiruvananthapuram, referring the letter dated 30.06.2021 issued by the Section Forest Officer, Sri.K.K.Salim (the 3rd accused) has been placed and in the said letter also it was noted that the work was not fully carried out, as reported by the 3 rd accused. This letter has been relied on by this Court in Annexure-4 order, is the submission of the learned counsel for the 3rd accused.
9. According to the learned counsel for the 3rd accused, in the instant case, nothing available prima facie to see that the 3rd accused demanded bribe and pursuance to the same he had accepted the bribe. The prosecution materials would go to show that, bribe was demanded by 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 9 the 1st accused and the complainant reached the Vigilance Office and waited to give the bribe to the 1 st accused, since she was absent at the office during the relevant time, the money was entrusted to the 3rd accused, as instructed by the 1st accused. According to the learned counsel for the 3 rd accused, if the 1st accused was available at her office the bribe money would have been handed over to the 1 st accused and the intervention of the 3 rd accused would not have been there. Then, it is pointed out that, the 3 rd accused came into picture only on the basis of instruction given by the 1st accused to the complainant to meet him in her absence. In fact, the money was demanded by the 1 st accused, though the same was entrusted to the 3 rd accused, as instructed by her, the 3 rd accused/petitioner herein could not be found fault with, on alleging that he committed offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act.
10. Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed quashment sought for, while conceding Annexures-4 and 6 orders of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, whereby the FIR and further 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 10 proceedings against the 1st accused have been quashed.
11. Initially, when the matter was heard, the learned Public Prosecutor was specifically directed to get instruction regarding details of the telephone calls in between the 3 rd accused and the complainant. In this regard, the learned Public Prosecutor produced the details of the FSL report pertaining to audio clip numbered as AUD-202109729- WA0121 between the complainant and the 3rd accused with the relevant portion of the calls extracted. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that, the 3 rd accused was entrusted to the supervision of the compensatory afforestation at Kerala University Campus, Karyavattam, on a daily basis, had deliberately withheld the measurement book after its preparation on 19.06.2021, with the assistance of Smt.Bindu (witness No.16), Senior Forest Officer, a colleague of the 3rd accused, without producing the same before his superiors for further process. It is reported further that, during investigation, it has been revealed that, the bills pertaining to the works undertaken by the complainant was not prepared and submitted, even after preparation of the measurement book on 19.06.2021, 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 11 for nearly two months till the trap, with an ulterior motive to get illegal gratification for processing the bill. However, the M book pertaining to the work was kept ideal by the 3 rd accused, without submitting the same to his immediate superior officer, the Range Forest Officer for the check measurement and further process, even after two months of its preparation. Apart from the report, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, as per the FIS given, right from the very beginning itself, demand of bribe by the 1 st accused as well as the 3rd accused has been stated by the complainant and based upon which, FIR was registered on 15.08.2021. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that, apart from the FIS, in the additional statement also the complainant stated that, when the complainant met the 3 rd accused, as instructed by the 1 st accused, also he enquired to the complainant that, whether the money demanded by the 1st accused was brought and on his demand, the complainant had entrusted the money to the 3 rd accused. It is also submitted that, the additional statement of the complainant was recorded on 09.01.2025 and in the said statement, the telephone conversation in between the 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 12 accused and the complainant for 13.09 minutes was sent for chemical analysis report and based on which, the report now placed, as referred earlier was obtained.
12. On analyzing the facts involved in this case, it is not in dispute that, as per Annexure-4 order, this Court quashed the FIR as against the 1st accused, who alleged to have demanded the money, along with the 3 rd accused, where the 1st accused did not accept the bribe. This Court in Annexure-4 considered the contention raised by the 1 st accused and also the telephone calls in between the complainant and the 1st accused. In paragraph No.24, this Court raised question that, now, I shall turn to consider the facts on the touchstone of the principles declared by the Apex Court in Rajiv Thapar and others v. Madan Lal Kapoor [(2013) 3 SCC 330] and Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2013) 9 SCC 293] . While answering the said query and quashing the proceedings as against the 1st accused, this Court observed in paragraph Nos.25 to 29 as under:
25. The prosecution case is essentially built upon the allegations that the petitioner, the 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 13 Supervising Officer of the work undertaken by respondent No.3 and the officer empowered to recommend payment towards the work undertaken in the last week of June 2021, when approached by respondent No.3, demanded Rs.70,000/- as a bribe and after that, on the trap day when contacted over phone advised respondent No.3 to hand over the money to accused No.2. In support of the prosecution case as pleaded above, the prosecution relies on the following materials:
(i) The statement dated 15.08.2021 given by respondent No.3 to the Vigilance (the FIS)
(ii) The alleged telephonic conversation between respondent No.3 and the petitioner.
26. To establish the alleged telephonic conversation, the Vigilance collected the voice samples of the petitioner and respondent No.3 and sent the same for forensic examination. The FSL concluded that as the speech amount is too little and low signal-to-noise ratio, it is impossible to identify the suspected speaker.
27. Given the result of the examination as stated above, the prosecution has no materials to establish that the petitioner had any conversation, as alleged, with respondent No.3 on the trap day.
28. Now, what survives is the allegation of respondent No.3 in the FIS. It is the case of respondent No.3 that in the last week of June, when he approached the petitioner seeking 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 14 recommendation for the clearance of the bill for the work undertaken by him, she demanded bribe. The petitioner has placed materials to show that in June 2021, respondent No.3 had not completed the work as undertaken, and the petitioner recorded the same in the office notes after field verification and issued a communication to him on 26.02.2021 dictating him to complete the work in terms of the contract. The petitioner also reported the failure on the part of respondent No.3 to complete the work to the Deputy Forest Conservator, who also communicated to respondent No.3 to complete the work. The stand of respondent No.3, as per Annexures IV and V, was that he had completed the work, but the explanation given by him was rejected by the petitioner on 01.07.2021, and the same was again reported to the Deputy Forest Conservator. A question arises here, if the petitioner had the intention to insist on a bribe from respondent No.3, she would not have taken a tough stand against him and insisted on completing the work in terms of the contract. This could only be the inference of a prudent man.
29. The resultant conclusion is that the petitioner has placed materials, which are of sterling and impeccable quality, to rule out the assertions contained in the complaint. Those materials are sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions in the FIS against the petitioner, the sole material now relied on by the prosecution to rope in 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 15 the petitioner in the crime. The materials relied on by the petitioner are also sufficient to destroy the factual basis of the accusation against her. The prosecution failed to place any material to refute those materials relied on by the petitioner. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against her would result in the abuse of the process of the Court and would not serve the ends of justice.
13. No doubt, as per Annexure-6 order, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal challenging Annexure-4 order and the order in favour of the 1 st accused has become final, though it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that, the Apex Court dismissed the S.L.P. on finding the long delay in filing the S.L.P.
14. The law is well settled that demand and acceptance of bribe or illegal gratification are the essential ingredients to complete an offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. In a Five Bench decision of the Apex Court in [[AIR 2023 SC 330 : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029] Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) , where the Apex Court considered when the demand and acceptance under Section 7 of the P.C Act to be said to be 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 16 proved along with ingredients for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act and in paragraph 68 it has been held as under:
68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 17 case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act.
In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)
(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and inturn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 18 and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 19 is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13(1) (d) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.
15. Coming to the crux of this case, going through the FIS recorded on 15.08.2021, the complainant given statement that he had been working as a 'C' class contractor with license in Kerala Forest Department from 2018. While so, he undertook the work in the Forest Range Office, Attingal during November, 2020 and the same included production and plantation of 25000 saplings in Kilimanoor Village, 25000 saplings in Varkala Block coming to total 70000 saplings and the supervision of the work was entrusted to Sri.Ragesh, Range Forest Officer. He also took the work to replant the trees which were cut and removed as part of Vizhinjam International Seaport Project at Kerala University Campus, Karyavattam and the control of the work and encashment of bill were entrusted to Smt.Divya Rose (the 1st accused), Range Officer. According to the 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 20 complainant, on completion of work for getting the bill, Smt.Divya Rose demanded 35% of the amount of contract. When the complainant met Smt.Divya Rose to get the bill encashed, after completing the work, she demanded the first installment of Rs.70,000/- directly from him and also directed him to entrust the same to the 3 rd accused. Further, statement of the complainant is that, when he reached the office on 11.08.2021 for encashing the bill, Rs.70,000/- was demanded by Smt.Divya Rose and Sri.K.K.Salim (the 3rd accused/petitioner herein). Finally, the statement of the complainant is that, Smt.Divya Rose demanded Rs.70,000/- directly and through Sri.K.K.Salim.
16. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the 3rd accused that, in this case, the FIR was registered on 19.00 hours on 15.08.2021 i.e. during Independence day celebrations, without thorough verification of the details given by the complainant, in a hurry burry manner, with a view to trap the 3rd accused, with ulterior motives.
17. But, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that, in fact, preliminary verification was done and on finding truth with regard to the allegations, the FIR 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 21 was registered acting on the FIS in the form complaint given by the complainant. Pursuant to that, trap proceedings were initiated on the next day and thereafter, the 3rd accused demanded and accepted the money.
18. In view of the rival submissions, the question to be considered is, whether the 3 rd accused/petitioner herein demanded and accepted Rs.70,000/- as bribe?
19. As regards to preliminary verification is concerned, records of the prosecution would show that, there is verification as submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor. Coming to the core issue, the statement given by the defacto complainant in the form of FIS and additional statements would reveal that, the 1 st accused was the person demanded 35% of the bill amount as bribe to encash the bill and in the FIS, it has been stated that on 11.08.2021, when the complainant reached the office, Smt.Divya Rose and Sri.K.K.Salim (accused Nos.1 and 3) jointly demanded Rs.70,000/- and it was thereafter the FIS was recorded and crime No.1/2021 of VACB Southern Range, Thiruvananthapuram, was registered.
20. On perusal of the telephone conversations 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 22 extracted and produced by the Investigating Officer, the 3 rd accused stated to the complainant that, there was already procedure in Thiruvananthapuram Range Forest Office, started much earlier. Further, the 3 rd accused stated to the complainant that, the complainant would not pay anything for this bill and would pay only 25 for the next bill. Then, the complainant replied that, 'if you write like this, how can I do something?' After, the 3rd accused told the complainant that he would talk to him, when they meet in person.
21. Further, the telephone call would show that, the 3rd accused informed the complainant that, the M-Book was prepared and the bill would be prepared tomorrow or the next day. Further, the 3rd accused stated to the complainant that, the bill would be prepared tomorrow. Going through the telephonic conversation, something which would favour insistence of payment of illegal gratification at the instance of the 3rd accused could be gathered. In Annexure-4, this Court has given heavy reliance to the telephone conversation in between the 1st accused and the complainant and found that, 'the FSL report concluded that the speech amount is too little and low signal-to-noice ratio, 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 23 it was impossible to identify suspected speaker'.
22. Thus, the subtle difference from the facts considered by this Court, while passing Annexure-4 order and the facts in the present case is, availability of telephone conversation in between the 3rd accused and the complainant. The alleged telephonic conversation between the complainant and the 1 st accused collected by the Vigilance, when sent for forensic examination, the FSL concluded that the speech amount was too little and low signal-to-noice ratio, it was impossible to identify the suspected speaker. In this case, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the 3rd accused, as on 30.06.2021, the 3rd accused reported to the Range Forest Officer regarding non completion of the work by the complainant and the Range Forest Officer, as per letter dated 01.07.2021, addressed to the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Social Forestry Division, Thiruvananthapuram, reported that the work was not fully carried out by the complainant, as reported by the 3rd accused on the strength of Annexure-3.
23. Going by the prosecution allegations as narrated in the complaint lodged by the complainant, the main 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 24 allegation is demand of 35% of the bill amount as bribe by the 1st accused and demand of Rs.70,000/- as the first installment before Onam. At the same time, in the FIS there is allegation that on 11.08.2021, the 1 st and 3rd accused demanded bribe. But, the statement of the complainant would show that on the day of trap, when the complainant reached the office to meet the 1st accused, she was not there and he waited there for her arrival. Since, the complainant found delay in her arrival, he telephoned the 1st accused and as instructed by her, the complainant entrusted the money to the 3 rd accused and he accepted the same. Even the telephonic conversation between the complainant and 3rd accused also did not show specifically that the 3rd accused demanded bribe from the complainant. A vital aspect in this regard is, if the 3 rd accused also made the demand in joint hands with the 1 st accused, then there is no necessity for the complainant to await for the 1 st accused and to telephone her and he could very well give the money to the 3rd accused, without waiting for the 1 st accused. Thus, the prosecution case would show that, mainly the demand for bribe was made by the 1 st accused, 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 25 though she did not accept the same because of her absence during the day of trap. But, the version of complainant is that, he waited for the 1 st accused at her office and since the 1st accused was not available at her office, he telephoned her and as instructed by her, he entrusted the money to the 3rd accused. On this facts of the case, this Court quashed the FIR and further proceedings against the 1st accused as per Annexure-4. Challenge thereof before the Hon'ble Apex Court also was failed and accordingly, the case against the 1 st accused stood quashed. Now, the complicity of the petitioner, who is the 3rd accused, as per the prosecution records is something less than that of the 1st accused, though he was the man ultimately accepted the bribe money.
24. At this juncture, the doctrine of parity has application. The doctrine of parity is the principle, which provides that, individuals in similar circumstances should be treated equally by the law and the Courts, particularly regarding the fairness of punishments or while granting reliefs. It was intented to serve prevention of arbitrary and discriminatory outcomes and to ensure that similar parties 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 26 would receive similar treatment. To be more explicit, when evidence or materials showing culpability are comparable in between two accused persons, the benefit given to one of the accused shall be adjudged in favour of the other accused, who is placed in similar situation. At the same time, this doctrine does not create an absolute uniformity and it requires applying same standards to individuals with similar roles and involvement in a case. At the same time, it allows for difference based on unique, aggravating or mitigating factors. Thus, it is necessary for the Courts to apply the same standard of justice to multiple accused persons, who are implicated on the basis of similar or identical materials.
25. On evaluation of the prosecution materials on par with the principle of doctrine of parity, the 3 rd accused is also entitled to get quashment of proceedings against him, for the reasons discussed herein above, particularly in the context of Annexures-4 and 6 orders. Therefore, the proceedings against the 3rd accused are liable to be quashed.
26. In the result, this petition stands allowed.
2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 27 Annexure-1 FIR and all further proceedings in Crime No.VC.01/2021/CRE of VACB, Southern Range, Thiruvananthapuram, stand quashed, as against the petitioner/accused No. 3.
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 2025:KER:66551 Crl.M.C. No. 10940 of 2023 28 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10940/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure -1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
VC.01/2021/CRE OF VACB SOUTHERN RANGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure -2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY MAHAZAR DATED 16.08.2021 Annexure -3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.06.2021 TO THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER Annexure -4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.11.2023 IN CRL MC NO.2384/2022 IS PRODUCED Annexure -5 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IN SLP (CRL) NO.3168/2024 Annexure -6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.03.2024 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO.3168/2024 BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Annexure -7 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT IN CRL. MC NO.2384/2022 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 17.05.2022 AS PRODUCED IN THE SLP