Mini vs Cbi/Spe Cochin

REPORTABLE 2025 INSC 980 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025. (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 11212/2022)

MINI APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

CBI/SPE COCHIN RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. This appeal is by widow of the deceased convict

(Mohanachandran N.K.) against the judgment and order of the

High Court of Kerala dated 14.01.2020 in Criminal Appeal

No.1164/2010 whereby conviction of her husband (hereinafter

referred to as the accused), under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read

with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has

been upheld.

4. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that the accused

was functioning as a lower division clerk in the Passport

Office, Thiruvananthapuram. The original complainant (PW1)

required a passport urgently. In that context, he contacted Signature Not Verified the accused. The accused required him to bring Rs.1,000/- Digitally signed by Nirmala Negi Date: 2025.08.14 15:09:14 IST Reason: towards passport fee and other necessary documents. Over and

above the lawful amount of Rs.1000, accused demanded Rs.500

for processing the application expeditiously. On PW1’s 2

expression of his inability to pay gratification amount of

Rs.500, the accused told PW1 that initially he may pay

Rs.200/- and the balance may be paid after getting the

passport. As per instructions, the amount of Rs.1200 (i.e.,

Rs.1000 towards Passport fee plus Rs.200 towards

gratification) along with application form and documents

were to be delivered at the residence of the accused on

16.06.2003. In the meantime, the complainant made a

complaint to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short

“the CBI”) which, after registering the complaint, laid a

trap. In furtherance thereof, on 16.06.2003, at the

residence of the accused, treated currency notes amounting

to Rs.1200 were handed over to the accused and soon

thereafter, he was apprehended, and his hand wash was

collected.

5. During trial, PW1 (the original complainant) did not

support the prosecution case as regards the demand of bribe.

The Trial Court, however, convicted the accused upon finding

that lodging of complaint and delivery of tainted money was

duly proved by the prosecution. Aggrieved by his conviction,

the accused filed an appeal which was dismissed by the

impugned order.

6. The submission on behalf of the appellant is that the

Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence as

well as the defense of the accused set up in his statement 3

made under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (for short ‘the CRPC’). It is submitted that under

Section 313 the accused had explained the incriminating

circumstances by stating that PW1 had approached him through

an advocate for help in obtaining the passport. In that

context, the accused had decided to help him and on

16.06.2003 the complainant came to the house of the accused

along with the prescribed fee of Rs.1000 and documents

necessary for issuance of a passport. This was received and

kept by the accused under the belief that it was prescribed

fee amount only. At that time, accused was not aware that

between two Rs.500 denomination currency notes there were

two Rs.100 denomination currency notes. Thus, the defense

taken by the accused was that the accused was unaware that

the amount being given to him was more than the amount

required to be deposited towards passport fee.

7. Additionally, it has been argued that once the demand

is not proved, and Rs.1000 were in any case to be paid

towards passport fee, the recovery of that amount by itself

would not be incriminatory. In such circumstances, it was a

fit case where the accused ought to have been acquitted and,

in any event, given the benefit of doubt.

8. Per contra, on behalf of the CBI it has been argued

that even if the complainant does not support the

prosecution case, or turn hostile, during trial, if it is 4

proved that the complainant had lodged a complaint

complaining demand of bribe from him by the accused and,

thereafter, money is received by the accused, conviction can

be sustained by relying on circumstances that establish

demand. It has been argued on behalf of the CBI that PW2,

who is an independent witness, has proved that there was

recovery of the tainted money from the accused. PW3 also

corroborates the aforesaid fact, and both PW2 & PW3 have

proved that the complaint was lodged by PW1. Therefore,

even if PW1 turned hostile, insofar as demand is concerned,

the demand stood proved. It is, therefore, submitted on

behalf of the respondent(s) that as there are concurrent

findings holding the accused guilty, the appeal of the

appellant ought to be dismissed.

9. We have considered the submissions of the learned

counsel for the parties and have perused the record

carefully.

10. At the outset, we may observe that there can be no

quarrel with the proposition that demand can be proved by

circumstances even if the original complainant does not in

so many words supports the prosecution case during trial.

11. However, in the case on hand, in paragraph 20 of the

impugned judgment, the High Court has noticed the statement

of PW-1 wherein he stated that he was misled by one person, 5

who was employed in the CBI, that the accused was a corrupt

person and even though several attempts were made by the CBI

to trap him, they were not successful. That person sought

assistance of PW1 to trap the officer. In our view, when

this was the statement of PW1 courts were required to be

circumspect in evaluating the evidence. In that context,

when we meticulously look at the evidence, we find that it

is not in dispute that the prosecution case itself was that

the amount provided to the accused included lawful charges

payable towards passport fee. The lawful charges were

Rs.1000 and the bribe money Rs.200. In such circumstances,

when the complainant had not supported the prosecution case

during trial regarding demand of bribe money, the trial

court and the appellate court were required to meticulously

consider, particularly in the context of defense taken by

the accused in his statement under Section 313 CRPC, whether

the accused at the time of accepting the money was aware

that it was in excess of the lawful fee payable for the

passport. Importantly, other than PW1, who was not wholly

reliable, prosecution brought no evidence that when the

money was accepted by the accused, he had counted the money

or that the money was counted in front of the accused before

handing it over to him. Notably, the defense of the accused

is that there were two Rs.500 denomination currency notes

and in between those two notes, two Rs.100 denomination

currency notes were placed. It is his case that he was not

aware that there were two Rs.100 notes extra than what were 6

to be deposited for the purposes of applying for a passport.

In such circumstances, in our view, it was obligatory upon

the Court to consider the defense of the accused seriously.

12. It is well settled that statement of the accused

explaining the incriminating circumstances is to be

considered before recording conviction and where the

explanation is plausible and appropriately explains the

incriminating circumstances, it may be accepted. In the

present case, we find that the complainant himself had

approached the accused for seeking his help for a passport.

Admittedly, out of Rs.1200 paid, Rs.1000 were towards

passport fee and, therefore, was not bribe money. Demand for

the bribe is not supported during trial. In such

circumstances, the defense of the accused that he agreed to

help the complainant because he was introduced by an

advocate, and that he was not aware that Rs.200 has been

added to Rs.1000, which was the lawful amount payable

towards passport fee, ought not to have been brushed aside.

More so, because if the complainant had offered to the

accused only the lawful fee payable for processing the

passport, no offence was committed. To make out an offence

there had to be cogent proof of demand. In the instant case,

the complainant has not supported demand and insofar as

receipt of extra Rs.200 is concerned, there was no reliable

evidence. Further, there was defense of the accused that he

was not aware about those extra Rs.200. Therefore, in our 7

view, this was a fit case where benefit of doubt had to be

given to the accused.

13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The

judgment and order(s) of the High Court and the trial court

are set aside. The accused who is no more alive, shall be

treated as acquitted of all the charges for which he has

been tried.

14. Pending application(s), if any shall stand disposed of.

...…..............J. [MANOJ MISRA]

...................J. [UJJAL BHUYAN]

New Delhi;

August 13, 2025.

8

ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.15 SECTION II-D

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 11212/2022

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-01-2020 in CRLA No. 1164/2010 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam]

MINI PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

CBI/SPE COCHIN RESPONDENT(S)

FOR ADMISSION and I.R.

Date : 13-08-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Adolf Mathew, Adv.

Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mrs. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mrs. Vimla Sinha, Adv.

Mr. Gautam Bharadwaj, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Nikhil Chandra Jaiswal, Adv. Manasi Sridhar, Adv.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable order,

which is placed on the file.

3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(NIRMALA NEGI) (SAPNA BANSAL) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)