Mini vs. Cbi/Spe Cochin

1

(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
the accused. The accused required him to bring Rs.1,000/-
Signature Not Verified
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)