C.MADHAVAN vs CBI

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 1 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TH
TUESDAY, THE 8 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 17TH BHADRA, 1948
CRL.REV.PET NO. 524 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2025 IN CMP 488/2021 IN CC
NO.2 OF 2016 OF SPECIAL C SPE/CBI- II & 4 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
C.MADHAVAN
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O. LATE.P.RAMAN, 60/26, ST. FRANCIS XAVIER CHURCH
ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682018
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEO PAUL
SRI.C.R.PRAMOD
SRI.S.ASHOK KUMAR.
SHRI.JACOB GEORGE PALLATH
SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN A.S.
SHRI.AKSHAI.K.R.
SHRI.C.B.GAUTHAM
SMT.MARIYAM MATHEWS
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
CBI
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) CBI REPRESENTED
BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI/SPE/ACB, KOCHI, BY
STANDING COUNSEL, CBI, PIN - 682017
SPL PP SREELAL N WARRIER.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.08.2026, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.546/2025,
810/2025, THE COURT ON 08.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 2 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TH
TUESDAY, THE 8 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 17TH BHADRA, 1948
CRL.REV.PET NO. 546 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2025 IN Crl.M.Appl 487/2021
IN CC NO.2 OF 2016 OF SPECIAL C SPE/CBI- II & 4 ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.8:
DR S ANIL KUMAR
AGED 46 YEARS
KRISHNA BHAVAN, KAITHAVALAPPIL HOUSE, THATHAMPALLY
POST ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 688013
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN (SR.)
SMT.CHANCHAL SERAPHINE
SHRI.JOSE JONES JOSEPH
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ACB, COCHIN,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF CBI, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, PIN - 682017
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.08.2026, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.524/2025 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 08.09.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 3 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TH
TUESDAY, THE 8 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 17TH BHADRA, 1948
CRL.REV.PET NO. 810 OF 2025
CRIME NO.RC14(A)//2013 OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
KOCHI, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 07.02.2025 IN CRMP
195/2022 IN CC NO.2 OF 2016 OF SPECIAL C SPE/CBI- II & 4
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER.ACCUSED NO.11:
AHMED SUHAIL
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O SULTHAN AHMED, MAILANDHIKAL HOUSE, PAYANGADI,
KANNUR – 670303, NOW RESIDING AT K.P.M ENCLAVE, NEW
NO. 21, 3RD STREET, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU,
PIN - 600024
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH
SHRI.VISHNU CHANDRAN
SHRI. RALPH RETI JOHN
SHRI.GIRIDHAR KRISHNA KUMAR
SMT.GEETHU T.A.
SMT.MARY GREESHMA
SMT.LIZ JOHNY
SMT.KRISHNAPRIYA SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU
COCHIN, KATHRIKADAVU, P.O.KALOOR, COCHIN, KERALA, PIN
- 682017
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.08.2026, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.524/2025 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 08.09.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 4 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
'C.R'
O R D E R
[Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025, 546/2025, 810/2025]
th
Dated this the 8 day of September, 2026
These are revision petitions filed by accused Nos.1, 8 and 11 in
C.C.No.2 of 2016 on the files of the Additional Special Court (SPE/CBI)
– II, Ernakulam challenging common order in Crl.M.P.Nos.488/2021,
487/2021, 8/2022, 33/2022, 195/2022 & 461/2021 dated 07.02.2025.
As per the common order, the learned Special Judge dismissed the
discharge plea raised by the revision petitioners/accused Nos.1, 8, 9,
11 and 15.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective revision
petitioners and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent. Perused the records and also the common order impugned.
st
3. The prosecution allegation against the 1 accused is that,
while he was working in Air Cargo Complex (ACC), he had held the
additional charge of Air Intelligence Unit of Customs (AIU) and
Administration and he was having effective control over the passenger
clearance section in Cochin International Airport from May 2013 to
September 2013. While so, the petitioner along with other accused
persons hatched criminal conspiracy to smuggle gold into India. It is
st
further alleged that in pursuance to the said criminal conspiracy, the 1

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 5 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
accused had made arrangements for the smooth passage of the
smugglers without customs checking, through the officers he had
st
posted in the Airport. It is also alleged that the 1 accused obtained
th
illegal gratification from the 4 accused and in furtherance of the same
and as an outcome of the aforesaid conspiracy, abetted smuggling of 56
Kgs. of gold worth Rs.17.86 crores without customs clearance and
thereby caused wrongful loss to the Union of India. Similarly, the said
smuggling operations caused loss of Rs. 1.83 crores @ 10% customs
duties on 17.86 crores plus 3% cess to the government of India and
caused equivalent wrongful gain to him and other accused persons.
th
The further allegation of the prosecution is that the 8 accused Dr.Anil
Kumar also received gifts for the unholy assistance, he had rendered to
th
the 4 accused and the seizure made on the strength of the disclosure
th
statement given by 9 accused and consequential recovery from the
th th
residence of the 9 accused would go against the 8 accused. That
th
apart, the 4 accused had transferred a sum of Rs.5 lakh to the bank
th th
account of the 8 accused and in addition, the 4 accused had provided
an Innova vehicle, including its fuel cost and a driver, free of cost for the
th
purpose of using it during the marriage of the 8 accused. This was in
th
reciprocal to the assistance extended by the 8 accused for smuggling
activities which caused loss to the tune of Rs.17,86,49,732/- to the
Government of India. CDR speak volumes as to the frequent contact

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 6 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
between the accused especially during the dates of smuggling. The
th
documents seized from the Customs department established that the 8
accused facilitated A4 to import 42" LED TV on a very lesser duty on
21.08.2013. Thus, the prosecution alleges commission of offences
punishable u/Ss 201, 120B r/w.420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short
'the IPC', hereinafter) and Section 7, 12, 13(2) r/w.13(1) (d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('P. C. Act, 1988', for short
hereinafter).
4. The allegation against accused Nos.11 and 15 is that the
th
11 accused visited Cochin airport from Dubai on 20.08.2013
th
accompanied by the 7 accused, who had smuggled 4 Kgs of gold from
th
Dubai. As instructed by the 4 accused, witness No.24 Rafeeq picked
A7 and A11 from Cochin International Airport at around 3.30 hours on
20.08.2013 from the arrival gate of the Airport in a BMW car along with
the luggage carried by them containing one packed LED TV and
proceeded to Hotel Flora near the Airport and dropped them in the hotel
th
with luggage except TV and after sometime the 11 accused handed
over the packet containing smuggled gold of 4 Kgs to witness No.24 and
directed him to handover the same along with TV to a person waiting in
Calicut and also gave his identity and mobile number to whom it had to
be handed over. Accordingly, the same was handed over to A14 in
Calicut.

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 7 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
st
5. The learned counsel for the 1 accused argued that no
materials available to see prima facie the allegations levelled against the
st st
1 accused. According to him, in the departmental proceedings, the 1
accused was exonerated. Therefore, prima facie the allegations raised in
st
final report are found against and therefore, the 1 accused is liable to
be discharged in this case, after setting aside the common order. The
th
learned counsel for the 8 accused argued at length mainly contenting
th
that in the instant case though the allegation against the 8 accused is
demand and acceptance of Rs.5,00,000/- and also obtainment of 42
inch LED TV, treadmill, camera, Rado watch, camera, sunglass etc.,
nothing available prima facie to find demand of illegal gratification to
justify commission of offences under Section 7 as well as 13 of the P.C.
th
Act, 1988. He also reiterated that in the departmental proceedings 8
accused also was exonerated. Therefore, this criminal prosecution based
on the same sets of facts, where the departmental proceedings given
th
clean chit the 8 accused could not be proceeded and in this connection
he has placed decision of the Apex Court in Radheshyam Kejriwal v.
State of West Bengal and another [2011 SCC OnLine SC 363] , with
reference to paragraph 38, where 7 principles have been stated by the
Apex Court.
6. Apart from that, he has relied on the decision of the
Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 8 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
[2022 (7) KHC 647] , to contend that in the absence of materials for
demand either the offences under Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d) of the PC
Act, 1988 would not lie.
th
7. The leaned counsel for the 11 accused argued that apart
th
from the statement of witness No.24, to the effect that, 7 accused and
th
11 accused landed in Cochin International Airport and picked up by
th
him as instructed by the 4 accused and handed over a bag and an
th th
LED TV as directed by the 4 accused to deliver them to the 14
accused, no other documents available to fasten criminal culpability
th
upon him. Thus he prayed for discharge of the 11 accused.
8. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the CBI
zealously opposed the contentions and submitted the relevant points
justifying prima facie commission of offences alleged against accused
st th
Nos.1, 8 and 11. He also submitted that even though the 1 and 8
accused were given exoneration in the departmental proceedings and
the appeal thereof had been dismissed, writ petition challenging the
same has been pending before this Court for consideration, therefore
the same cannot be relied on for any purpose. He zealously pointed out
that exoneration in departmental proceedings by itself would not
st th
absolve criminal liability of the 1 and 8 accused.
st
9. In this case, the allegation against 1 accused is that he had
abused his official position to enable gold smuggling worth Rs.17.86

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 9 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
crores and caused a customs duty loss of Rs.1.83 crores, while holding
charge over the Air Intelligence Unit (AIU) and passenger clearance
section in Cochin International Airport in pursuance of a conspiracy
hatched between the accused persons. The specific allegation is that he
had obtained Rs.2 Lakh, 42” LED TV and dinner set on 20.06.2013 as
illegal gratification. The prosecution relied on the statements of witness
No.13, Joseph Jaison, a Contingent Staff, Customs Department who
spoke about the close relation of A1 with A4; witness No.14, Suresh
Babu, Contingent Staff, Customs Department, who spoke about the
close relation of A1 with A4 and also about receiving of illegal
gratification by A1 and his son from A4; witness Nos.3 and 4, Officers of
customs department confirms frequent meetings between A1 and A4;
witness No.36, Abdul Latheef, Employer of A4, who stated that A1 had
contacted him seeking assistance to save A4 from the custody of the
Customs authorities; witness No.28, KT Thomas, Brother-in-law of A1,
who spoke about the secret mobile phone of A1 and about receiving of
illegal gratification from A4 to A1 which is now kept in his residence by
A1’s son. The prosecution also relies on D47, Disclosure Statement of
A1, and D48, Seizure Mahazar prepared at the residence of W28.
th
Similarly, the allegation against the 8 accused is that he abused his
official position to facilitate gold smuggling without customs checking,
knowingly failing to check dubious activities of A4, ad acting as a mute

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 10 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
spectator to facilitate the illegal activities in the Airport in pursuance of
the conspiracy. He had obtained Rs.5 Lakh, 42” LED TV, Treadmill,
Rado Watch, Camera, Sunglass etc., as illegal gratification. The
prosecution relies on D54, Disclosure Statement of A8; D55, Search List
prepared at the residence of the mother of A8; D56, Seizure of visiting
cards of A4 showing transfer of Rs.5,00,000/- to A8 through a cheque
issued from Dhanalakshmi Bank; D61, Recovery Mahazar u/s. 27
prepared as per disclosure of A8 at the rented accommodation of A9;
MO26 to 37, seized from the residence of A9, K.R Renjith (Driver of A8) –
Discharged; W48 to 50, who spoke about the procurement of the Innova
car by A4; W51, Abid K, who stated that he delivered the Innova car to
A8 at the request of A4.
th
10. In order to prove the allegation against the 11 accused,
prima facie the prosecution relies on; D135, Embarkation Card of A11
showing his departure on the relevant date; D141, Disembarkation Card
of A11 showing his arrival on the relevant date. According to the
prosecution, D118 to 119 would prove the stay of A11 at Koluvans
Residency; D120 to 121, would prove the stay of A11 at Flora Airport
Hotel, Opp Nedumbassery Airport; W24, Mohammed Rafeeq states that
A7 and A11 landed in Cochin International Airport and were picked up
by CW24, acting under the instructions of A4. They were dropped at a
nearby hotel. A7 and A11 handed over 4 Kg of smuggled gold and the

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 11 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
LED TV to him, and he was directed by A4 to deliver them to A14 (Y.M
Subair – Private Person) in Calicut. The delivery was successfully
completed. D181, 108 statements of A7 would show the involvement of
A11.
th
11. Going through the charge as against the 8 accused, the
specific charges are charge No. VIII, IX and X and are extracted as
under:
“ CHARGE - VIII
That, during the period May 2013 to September 2013, A-8 Dr
Anil Kumar while working as a Public Servant in the
capacity as Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin
International Airport Ltd (CIAL), Nedumbassery, by corrupt
or illegal means or by abusing his official position as Public
Servant entered into criminal conspiracy with the other
accused persons and in pursuance there of A-8 obtained
illegal gratification from A-4 in the form of Rs.5 lakhs, a 42"
LED TV, Treadmill, Rado Watch, Camera, Sunglass, etc and
A-8 accepted an Innova car for the marriage of A-8 free of
cost, in contravention to the existing Customs Rules &
Regulations for facilitating the smuggling of 56 kilogram gold
worth about Rs 17.86 Crores by the accused persons as
narrated in Charge 1 as above, thereby A-8 Dr Anil Kumar
committing Criminal Misconduct punishable U/s.13(2) sec.
13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
CHARGE - IX
That, during the period May 2013 to September 2013, A-8 Dr
Anil Kumar while working as a Public Servant in the
capacity as Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 12 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
International Airport Ltd (CIAL), Nedumbassery, demanded
and accepted illegal gratification other than legal
remuneration in the form of Rs.5 lakhs, a 42" LED TV,
Treadmill, Rado Watch, Camera, Sunglass, etc marriage of
A-8 free of cost, as a motive or reward for showing favours
to the accused persons in contravention to the existing
Customs Rules & Regulations and in connivance with other
accused persons facilitated the smuggling of 56 kilogram
gold worth about Rs 17.86 Crores by them as narrated in
Charge -1 above. Thus, A-8 Dr Anil Kumar committed offence
punishable U/s.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
CHARGE X
That, during the period May 2013 to September 2013, A-8 Dr
Anil Kumar while working as a Public Servant in the capacity
as Asst.Commissioner of Customs, Cochin International
Airport Ltd (CIAL), Nedumbassery, cheated Govt. of India by
abusing his official position as Public Servant in conspiracy
with private accused persons acting as smugglers of gold. A-8
by accepting illegal gratification from A-4 in the form of an
Rs.5 lakhs, a 42" LED TV, Treadmill, Rado Watch, Camera,
Sunglass, etc and A-8 accepted an Innova car for the
marriage of A-8 free of cost, in contravention to the existing
Customs Rules & Regulations and facilitated the smooth
passage of the smugglers and smuggled 56 kilogram gold
worth about Rs 17.86 Crores through Customs area without
customs clearance, by the accused persons as narrated in
Charge 1 above and thus caused wrongful loss to the tune of
about Rs 1.83 Crores @ 10% Custom duty on Rs 17.86 Crores
plus 3% cess, to the Govt. of India i.e the amount of customs
duty evaded and thus caused equivalent wrongful gain to
themselves. Dr Anil Kumar, thus cheated Govt. of India

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 13 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
committing offence punishable U/s. 420 of the Indian Penal
Code.”
st
12. As against the 1 accused, the specific charges are charge
Nos. II to IV, which are as under:
“ CHARGE - II
That, during the period May 2013 to September 2013, A-1,
Shri C. Madhavan while working as a public servant in his
capacity as Deputy Commissioner of Customs in charge of
Air Cargo section of Cochin International Airport Ltd (CIAL),
having the additional charge of Air Intelligence of the
Passenger section, by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing
his official position as Public Servant conspiracy with the
other accused persons and in pursuance thereof A-1
obtained illegal gratification from A-4 in the form of a 42"
LED TV and dinner set on 20.06.2013, in contravention to
the existing Customs Rules & Regulations for facilitating the
smuggling of 56 kilogram gold worth about approximately
Rs.17.86 Crores, by the accused persons as narrated in
Charge – 1 as above and thereby, Shri.C.Madhavan (A-1)
committing Criminal Misconduct punishable U/s.13(2) r/w
sec.13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.C
CHARGE - III
That, during the period May 2013 to September 2013, A-1.
Shri C. Madhavan while working as a public servant in his
capacity as Deputy Commissioner of Customs in charge of
Air Cargo section of Cochin International Airport Ltd (CIAL),
having the additional charge of Air Intelligence of the
Passenger section, demanded and accepted illegal

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 14 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
gratification other than legal remuneration in the form a 42"
LED TV and dinner set on 20.06.2013 as a motive or reward
for showing favours to the accused persons in contravention
to the existing Customs Rules & Regulations and in
connivance with other accused persons facilitated the
smuggling of 56 kilogram gold worth about Rs 17.86 Crores
by them as narrated in Charge 1 as above. Thus, Shri C.
Madhavan (A-1) committed offence punishable U/s.7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
CHARGE IV
That, during the period May 2013 to September 2013, A-1,
Shri C Madhavan while working as a public servant in his
capacity as Deputy Commissioner of Customs in charge of Air
Cargo section of Cochin International Airport Ltd (CIAL),
having the additional charge of Air Intelligence of the
Passenger section cheated Govt. of India by abusing his
official position as Public Servant in conspiracy with private
accused pet sons acting as smugglers of gold. A-1 by
accepting illegal gratification from A-4 in the form of a 42"
LED TV and dinner set on 20.06.2013, in contravention to the
existing Customs Rules & Regulations and facilitated the
smooth passage of the smugglers and the smuggled 56
kilogram gold worth about Rs 17.86 Crores through Customs
area without customs clearance, by the accused persons as
narrated in Charge 1 above and thus caused wrongful loss to
the tune of about Rs 1.83 Crores @ 10% Custom duty on Rs
17.86 Crores plus 3% cess, to the Govt. of India is the amount
of customs duty evaded and Shri C Madhavan, thus cheated
Govt. of India commiting offence punishable U/s. 420 of the
Indian Penal Code.”

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 15 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
th
13. Apart from general charges, as against the 11 accused, the
specific charge is charge No.XVIII , which reads as under:
“ CHARGE – XVIII
That, during the period May 2013 to September 2013, A-11,
Shri Ahmed Suhail being a private person involved in
smuggling activities between Dubai and India, cheated
Govt. of India in conspiracy with other accused persons,
private and Public Servants and in pursuance to the
conspiracy as narrated in charge 1, A-11 assisted A-4, Shri
Faiz in smuggling gold from Dubai to India and along with
A-7, Smt. Asifa smuggled at least 04 Kg of gold worth about
Rs. 01.27 Crores on 20.08.2013, which was liable to be
confiscated by the Customs authorities and thus caused
wrongful loss to the tune of about Rs 12 lakhs @ 10%
Custom duty on Rs 01.27 Crores plus 3% cess, to the Govt.
of India ile the amount of customs duty evaded and thereby
an equivalent wrongful gain to themselves. A-11, Shri
Ahmed Suhail, thus committed offence punishable U/s. 420
of the Indian Penal Code.”
14 . As regards the contentions raised by the learned counsel for
the revision petitioners (A1 and A8) that exoneration in the
departmental proceedings would be sufficient to grant discharge sought
for, the same question has been considered by this Court in a recent
decision reported in R.Balachandran v. State of Kerala [2026 KHC
OnLine 749 ]. Paragraphs 6 to 13 of the judgment are extract as under:

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 16 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
“6. While assailing the separate orders passed against the
same revision petitioner, a legal question has been raised by the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner, based on the three Bench
decision of the Supreme Court reported in Radheshyam Kejriwal v.
State of West Bengal and Another [2011 KHC 4144] , with
reference to paragraph Nos. 16, 19, 21, 23 and 24, contending that
exoneration of the revision petitioner in departmental proceedings, in
a case, where the allegations in the departmental proceedings as
well as in the criminal proceedings are identical, the criminal case on
the same facts is liable to be quashed. Another three Bench decision
of the Supreme Court in Ashoo Surendranth Tewari v. Deputy
Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and Another reported in
[2020 KHC 6539] also relied on the said point. In fact in both these
decisions, the Apex Court considered the earlier two Bench decision
of the Apex Court in P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar reported in [1997
KHC 202 : (1996) 9 SCC 1] and discussed the same in paragraph
No. 7 of the judgment in Ashoo Surendranth Tewari 's case (supra)
and held as under:-
“7. A number of judgments have held that the
standard of proof in a departmental proceeding, being
based on preponderance of probability is somewhat
lower than the standard of proof in a criminal
proceeding where the case has to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. In P.S. Rajya vs. State of Bihar,
(1996) 9 SCC 1, the question before the Court was
posed as follows:-
“3. The short question that arises for our
consideration in this appeal is whether the
respondent is justified in pursuing the prosecution
against the appellant under S. 5(2) read with S. 5(1)
(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
notwithstanding the fact that on an identical charge
the appellant was exonerated in the departmental
proceedings in the light of a report submitted by the
Central Vigilance Commission and concurred by the
Union Public Service Commission.”
This Court then went on to state:
“17. At the outset we may point out that the
learned counsel for the respondent could not but

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 17 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
accept the position that the standard of proof
required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is
far higher than the standard of proof required to
establish the guilt in the departmental proceedings.
He also accepted that in the present case, the
charge in the departmental proceedings and in the
criminal proceedings is one and the same. He did
not dispute the findings rendered in the
departmental proceedings and the ultimate result
of it.”
This being the case, the Court then held:
“23. Even though all these facts including the Report
of the Central Vigilance Commission were brought to
the notice of the High Court, unfortunately, the High
Court took a view that the issues raised had to be
gone into in the final proceedings and the Report of
the Central Vigilance Commission, exonerating the
appellant of the same charge in departmental
proceedings would not conclude the criminal case
against the appellant. We have already held that for
the reasons given, on the peculiar facts of this case,
the criminal proceedings initiated against the
appellant cannot be pursued. Therefore, we do not
agree with the view taken by the High Court as
stated above. These are the reasons for our order
dated 27-3-1996 for allowing the appeal and
quashing the impugned criminal proceedings and
giving consequential reliefs.”
In Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal and
Another, (2011) 3 SCC 581, this Court held as follows:-
“26. We may observe that the standard of proof in a
criminal case is much higher than that of the
adjudication proceedings. The Enforcement
Directorate has not been able to prove its case in the
adjudication proceedings and the appellant has been
exonerated on the same allegation. The appellant is
facing trial in the criminal case. Therefore, in our
opinion, the determination of facts in the adjudication
proceedings cannot be said to be irrelevant in the
criminal case. In B.N. Kashyap [AIR 1945 Lah 23] the
Full Bench had not considered the effect of a finding
of fact in a civil case over the criminal cases and that
will be evident from the following passage of the said
judgment: (AIR p. 27) “… I must, however, say that in
answering the question, I have only referred to civil
cases where the actions are in personam and not
those where the proceedings or actions are in rem.
Whether a finding of fact arrived at in such

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 18 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
proceedings or actions would be relevant in criminal
cases, it is unnecessary for me to decide in this case.
When that question arises for determination, the
provisions of Section 41 of the Evidence Act, will
have to be carefully examined.”
xxx xxx xxx
29. We do not have the slightest hesitation in
accepting the broad submission of Mr Malhotra that
the finding in an adjudication proceeding is not
binding in the proceeding for criminal prosecution. A
person held liable to pay penalty in adjudication
proceedings cannot necessarily be held guilty in a
criminal trial. Adjudication proceedings are decided on
the basis of preponderance of evidence of a little
higher degree whereas in a criminal case the entire
burden to prove beyond all reasonable doubt lies on
the prosecution.
xxx xxx xxx
31. It is trite that the standard of proof required in
criminal proceedings is higher than that required
before the adjudicating authority and in case the
accused is exonerated before the adjudicating
authority whether his prosecution on the same set of
facts can be allowed or not is the precise question
which falls for determination in this case.”
After referring to various judgments, this Court then
culled out the ratio of those decisions in paragraph 38
as follows:-
“38. The ratio which can be culled out from these
decisions can broadly be stated as follows:
(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal
prosecution can be launched simultaneously;
(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not
necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;
(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal
proceedings are independent in nature to each
other;
(iv) The finding against the person facing
prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not
binding on the proceeding for criminal
prosecution;

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 19 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement
Directorate is not prosecution by a competent
court of law to attract the provisions of Article
20(2) of the Constitution or S.300 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure;
(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in
favour of the person facing trial for identical
violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If
the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on
technical ground and not on merit, prosecution
may continue; and
(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits
where the allegation is found to be not
sustainable at all and the person held innocent,
criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and
circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the
underlying principle being the higher standard of
proof in criminal cases.” It finally concluded:
“39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would
be to judge as to whether the allegation in the
adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding
for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of
the
person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is
on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is
no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the
adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person
concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the
court.”
From our point of view, para 38(vii) is important
and if the High Court had bothered to apply this
parameter, then on a reading of the CVC report on
the same facts, the appellant should have been
exonerated.”
7. According to the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner, in both cases, the revision petitioner
had been exonerated in the departmental proceedings and
therefore, the prosecution case against him in the present
cases would not lie.

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 20 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
8. Whereas, the learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for CBI also relied on the above decisions as
well as the decision reported in State of N.C.T. of Delhi
v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi [2012(9) SCC 865] , contending that
departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are
independent and criminal trial must proceed on its own
evidence. Apart from that, the learned Special Public
Prosecutor has placed a latest decision of the Apex Court
reported in Karnataka Lokayuktha Bagalkote District
v. Chandrashekar [2026 KHC Online 6021] , wherein
also the Apex court had occasion to consider the decision in
State of N.C.T. of Delhi v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi 's case
(supra)and also P.S. Rajya 's case (supra). Discussing the
judgment in paragraph Nos. 12, 13 and 14, the learned
two Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court summarised the
principles as under:-
“12. The reference too was answered in
Ajay Kumar Tyagi , (2012) 9 SCC 685. A two-
Judge Bench decision of this Court in P.S
Rajya v. State of Bihar (1996) 9 SC 1 was
referred to wherein the criminal prosecution
was quashed when the departmental
proceedings concluded in exoneration. In P.S.
Rajya (1996) 9 SCC 1 , the allegation was of
possession of assets disproportionate to the
source of income. The Central Vigilance
Commission dealt with the charge and in its
elaborate report concluded that the valuation
report on which CBI placed reliance is of
doubtful nature. The Court on facts found that
the value given as a base for the chargesheet
was not the value given in the reports
subsequently given by the valuers. The
decision in P.S. Rajya (1996) 9 SCC 1 relying
on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335; the water shed decision in
invocation of the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 for quashing criminal
prosecution, held that the prosecution in that

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 21 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
case should be quashed for more than one
reason as laid down in Bhajan Lal. Ajay
Kumar Tyagi 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
categorically held that the quashing of criminal
proceedings in P.S. Rajya (1996) 9 SCC 1 was
not merely on account of the exoneration in the
disciplinary proceedings. Referring to a number
of decisions, it was held so in paragraphs 24 &
25 which are extracted hereunder:
“24. Therefore, in our opinion, the High Court
quashed the prosecution on total misreading
of the judgment in P.S. Rajya case (1996) 9
SCC 1. In fact, there are precedents, to which
we have referred to above, that speak
eloquently a contrary view i.e. exoneration in
departmental proceeding ipso facto would not
lead to exoneration or acquittal in a criminal
case. On principle also, this view commends
us. It is well settled that the standard of proof
in a department proceeding is lower than
that of criminal prosecution. It is equally well
settled that the departmental proceeding or
for that matter criminal cases have to be
decided only on the basis of evidence
adduced therein. Truthfulness of the evidence
in the criminal case can be judged only after
the evidence is adduced therein and the
criminal case cannot be rejected on the basis
of the evidence in the departmental
proceeding or the report of the inquiry officer
based on those evidence.
25. We are, therefore, of the opinion that
the exoneration in the departmental
proceeding ipso facto would not result in
the quashing of the criminal prosecution.
We hasten to add, however, that if the
prosecution against an accused is solely
based on a finding in a proceeding and
that finding is set aside by the superior
authority in the hierarchy, the very
foundation goes and the prosecution may
be quashed. But that principle will not
apply in the case of the departmental
proceeding as the criminal trial and the
departmental proceeding are held by two
different entities. Further, they are not in
the same hierarchy.”

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 22 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
13. We are of the opinion that in the present case the
distinction as brought out in Ajay Kumar Tyagi (2012) 9
SCC 685 squarely applies and the ratio decidendi therein
is not regulated by the ratio of the earlier judgment in
Radheshyam Kejriwal (2011) 3 SCC 581. In
Radheshyam Kejriwal (2011) 3 SCC 581, the
adjudication proceedings and the prosecution were both by
the very same entity, the Enforcement Directorate under
the FERA. In Ajay Kumar Tyagi (2012) 9 SCC 685, the
allegation was of a demand and acceptance of bribe in
which a trap was laid, and the prosecution was
commenced and continued by the ACB while the
departmental proceedings were by the Delhi Jal Board
under which the delinquent employee worked. Identical is
the fact in this case where the ACB laid the trap,
commenced and continued the criminal proceedings, at the
behest of the appellant, while the department carried on
with the enquiry. The findings in the enquiry report also do
not persuade us to quash the criminal proceedings as we
would presently notice.
14. At the outset, we cannot but reiterate that the
enquiry report in disciplinary proceedings is not conclusive
of the guilt or otherwise of the delinquent employee, which
finding is in the exclusive domain of the disciplinary
authority. The enquiry officer is appointed only as a
convenient measure to bring on record the allegations
against the delinquent employee and the proof thereof and
to ensure an opportunity to the delinquent employee to
contest and defend the same by cross-examination of the
witnesses proffered by the department and even
production of further evidence, in defense. The enquiry

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 23 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
officer, strictly speaking, merely records the evidence and
the finding entered on the basis of the evidence led at the
enquiry does not have any bearing on the final decision of
the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority takes
the ultimate call as to whether to concur with the findings
of the enquiry authority or to differ therefrom. On a
decision being taken to differ from the findings in the
enquiry report as to the guilt of the delinquent employee, if
it is in favour of the delinquent employee nothing more
needs to be done since the enquiry stands closed
exonerating the employee of the charges levelled. If the
decision is to concur with the finding of guilt by the
Enquiry Officer, then a show-cause is issued with the copy
of the Enquiry Report. However, while differing from the
finding of exoneration in the enquiry report, necessarily the
disciplinary authority will not only have to issue a show-
cause against the delinquent employee, with a copy of the
Enquiry Report, but the show- cause notice also has to
specifically bring to attention of the delinquent, the aspects
on which the disciplinary authority proposes to differ,
based on the facts discovered in the enquiry so as to
afford the delinquent employee an opportunity to proffer
his defense to the same.”
9. Apart from the above decisions, the learned
Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI also placed
another decision reported in State of Uttar Pradesh v. A.K.
Gaba etc., [2026 INSC 568], rendered by another two
Bench of the Apex Court.
10. The learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for the CBI stoutly opposed interference with
the orders impugned, contending that in these cases, the

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 24 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
allegations in the criminal case are on a different footing
for which evidence and trial are necessary and mere
exoneration of the revision petitioner in the departmental
proceedings, by itself, would not be sufficient to discharge
him from the criminal cases.
11. The learned Special Judge addressed the said
contention and while dismissing the discharge petition in
C.C. No. 8/2014, which is the subject matter in Crl.Rev.P
No. 737/2026, observed in paragraph No. 18 of the order
dated 30.05.2026 as under:-
“ 18. I have considered the submissions
made by other side. It is relevant to mention
that the prosecution has obtained sanction
under section 19(1)(c) of PC Act to prosecute
the accused Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6 and the
sanction orders has been produced as
documents Nos.80 to 83 along with final
report. Absolutely there is no objection raised
by the accused against the said sanction
orders. The fact that accused 1 and 3 were
acquitted in the disciplinary proceedings is
not at all a sufficient ground to discharge
accused No.1 and 3. The statement of Cws.
16 to 19 show that there are entries in the
nd
account books of the establishment of the 2
accused to show that illegal gratification has
been paid to the accused Nos.3, 5 and 6 in
the form of money and also in the form of
nd
gold coins. The writings of the 2 accused
and CWs.16 to 19 in the account books were
compared by the expert with their specimen
writing and detailed opinion has been given
by the expert. The report is produced by the
prosecution as document No.70 along with
final report. Moreover, the account books of
nd
the 2 accused, which are produced as
document Nos.31, 32, 33, 34 and 35, also
show that there are entries regarding
payment of illegal gratification to accused
Nos.3, 5 and 6. Moreover, as stated earlier,
gold coins were seized from the house of the
rd
3 accused and the corresponding invoices
issued by the Tanishq show room at Kochi

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 25 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
nd
was seized from the 2 accused. The entries
in the books of accounts are specific that the
illegal gratification in money has been given
to accused Nos.3, 5 and 6 and also that the
rd
gold coins of 200 grams were given to the 3
accused. I am not inclined to discard these
materials as unreliable at this stage. The
bank account statement in respect of bank
accounts were also seized during
investigation and produced before the Court.
The Manager of the Tanishq show room,
Ernakulam was also cited as a prosecution
witness to prove the sale of gold coin in
nd
favour of the 2 accused. It is to be taken
note that in cases of criminal conspiracy, the
agreement between the conspirators cannot
be generally be directly proved, but can only
be inferred from the facts and circumstances
proved in the cases on hand. So, the
prosecution has to be given an opportunity to
lead evidence in that regard. The available
materials show that there was dishonest
intention on part of all the accused to cheat
the Railway and to cause unlawful loss to
the Railway and wrongful gain for the
accused. The payment and receipt of illegal
gratification, as alleged is also prima facie
established. Hence, from the available
materials on record, I am of the considered
view that the prosecution has succeeded in
establishing the prosecution case against all
the accused, so as to frame a formal charge
against them. I am also satisfied that the
available materials before the court are
sufficient to presume that all the accused
have committed the offences alleged against
them and absolutely there are no materials
to hold that the charge against them is
groundless. Therefore, I am of the view that
separate charge is to be framed against all
the accused. Resultantly, discharge
applications filed by the accused Nos.1, 3, 5
and 6 as Crl. M.P Nos. 990/2015,
623/2015, 330/2017 and 528/2023 are
liable to be dismissed. Points are answered
accordingly.
12. Similarly, in Crl.Rev.P.No. 741/2026, in

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 26 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
paragraph No. 16 of the order dated 30.05.2026, the
learned Special Judge narrated his reasoning in
disallowing the discharge petition and the same reads as
under:-
“16. I have considered the
submissions made by other side. It is
relevant to mention that the prosecution
has obtained sanction under section 19(1)
(c) of PC Act to prosecute the accused
Nos.1, 2 and 4 and the sanction orders has
been produced as documents Nos.51 to 53
along with final report. Absolutely there is
no objection raised by the accused against
the said sanction orders. The fact that
accused 1 and 2 were acquitted in the
disciplinary proceedings is not at all a
sufficient ground to discharge accused
Nos.1 and 2. The statement of the approver
clinchingly establishes payment of illegal
gratification of .4,00,000/- to the first ₹
accused on 02/12/2007 and .10,000/- to ₹
the accused No.4 through the bank account
of his wife. I am not inclined to discard the
statement of the approver at this stage. It is
also relevant that the approver has given
statement before the JFCM-I, Ernakulam
and also before the CJM, Ernakulam in
that regard. It is to be taken note that in
cases of criminal conspiracy, the agreement
between the conspirators cannot be
generally be directly proved, but can only
be inferred from the facts and
circumstances proved in the cases on
hand. So, the prosecution has to be given
an opportunity to lead evidence in that
regard. The available materials show that
there was dishonest intention on part of all
the accused to cheat the Railway and to
cause unlawful loss to the Railway and
wrongful gain for the accused. The
payment and receipt of illegal gratification,
as alleged is also prima facie established.
Hence, from the available materials on
record, I am of the considered view that the
prosecution has succeeded in establishing
the prosecution case against all the

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 27 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
accused, so as to frame a formal charge
against them. I am also satisfied that the
available materials before the Court are
sufficient to presume that all the accused
have committed the offences alleged
against them and absolutely there are no
materials to hold that the charge against
them is groundless. Therefore, I am of the
view that separate charge is to be framed
against all the accused. Resultantly,
discharge applications filed by the accused
Nos. 1, 2 and 4 as Crl. M.P Nos. 622/2015,
204/2016 and 532/2023 are liable to be
dismissed. Points are answered
accordingly.”
13. The legal position emerges from the above discussion
can be summarised as under:-
(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal
prosecution can be launched simultaneously;
(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not
necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;
(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal
proceedings are independent in nature to each
other;
(iv) The finding against the person facing
prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not
binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution;
(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement
Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court
of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the
Constitution or S.300 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure;
(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in
favour of the person facing trial for identical
violation will depend upon the nature of finding.
(vii) Exoneration in departmental proceeding ipso
facto would not lead to exoneration or acquittal in a
criminal case.
(viii) The standard of proof in a department

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 28 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
proceeding is lower than that of criminal
prosecution.
(ix) The departmental proceeding or for that
matter criminal cases have to be decided only on
the basis of evidence adduced therein.
(x) Truthfulness of the evidence in the criminal
case can be judged only after the evidence is
adduced therein and the criminal case cannot be
rejected on the basis of the evidence in the
departmental proceeding or the report of the inquiry
officer based on those evidence.
(xi) The exoneration in the departmental
proceeding ipso facto would not result in the
quashing of the criminal prosecution. However, that
if the prosecution against an accused is solely
based on a finding in a proceeding and that finding
is set aside by the superior authority in the
hierarchy, the very foundation goes and the
prosecution may be quashed. But that principle will
not apply in the case of the departmental
proceeding as the criminal trial and the
departmental proceeding are held by two different
entities. Further, they are not in the same
hierarchy.”
(xii) The enquiry report in disciplinary proceedings is
not conclusive of the guilt or otherwise of the
delinquent employee, which finding is in the
exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority.”
15. Thus the legal position is in the above line.
16. It is the well settled law that when a court considers plea of
discharge, the Court has to look into whether the prosecution records
prima facie would show the ingredients for the offence/offences alleged
against the accused or the prosecution records would show a strong
suspicion warranting trial. On satisfaction of the same, on verification of
the prosecution records, the discharge petition is liable to be dismissed.

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 29 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
On verification of the prosecution records, if the Courts finds that prima
facie the offences are not made out or a strong suspicion regarding
involvement of the accused also not made out in committing the
offence/offences by the accused. Then, the plea of discharge is liable
to be allowed. The rational behind this legal position is to arrest pre-
trial termination of criminal proceedings without allowing the
prosecution to adduce evidence in support of the allegations, where
atleast a strong suspicion to be made out from the prosecution records,
which would likely to be proved while adducing evidence in the case,
during trial. It is also equally well settled that a mere suspicion would
not be sufficient in the place of 'strong suspicion'. In the instant case,
prima facie there are materials against the revision petitioners/accused
Nos.1, 8 and 11 found by this Court as discussed earlier. Therefore,
this Court is of the view that prima facie commission of offences alleged
against the revision petitioners to be found from the prosecution
records. In such a case, the plea of discharge cannot be considered. In
the said circumstances, the ratio in Neeraj Dutta (supra) is also can be
considered after trial, on evaluation of evidence. Therefore, this Court is
of the view that the learned Special Judge rightly dismissed the
discharge petitions filed by the revision petitioners for the reasons
stated in the order assailed. Thus, on merits, no interference in the
common order is warranted. That apart, on the facts in the instant

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 30 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
revision petitions, merely on the ground of exemption given to the
revision petitioners in the departmental proceedings, ipso facto , itself is
not a reason to grant discharge. Therefore, the impugned order need no
interference by this Court by exercising the limited power of revision, as
no absolute illegality or arbitrariness to be found therein.
In the result, these revision petitions are dismissed. All
interim orders stand vacated. Consequently, the Special Judge is
directed to proceed with the trial in the case without much delay,
and finalise the same, at any rate, within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of this order.
Sd/-A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
lsn

Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025 & Conn.cases 31 CNR : KLHC010415372025

2026:KER:68229
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET NO. 810 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Certified Copy CERTIFIED COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
7/2/2025 IN CRL MP 195/2022 IN CC 2/2016 ON
THE FILES OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE (PSE/CBI) –
II, ERNAKULAM.