Kerala High Court

S.Anitha vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 7 July, 2025

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

       MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1947

                   CRL.REV.PET NO. 630 OF 2025

 CRIME NO.RC 06(A)/14/CBI/2016 OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, Thiruvananthapuram
      JUDGMENT DATED 06.05.2025 IN CC NO.19 OF 2016 OF SPECIAL
COURT   (SPE/CBI)-I,   ERNAKULAM,  ARISING   OUT  OF  CRIME   NO.RC
06(A)/14/CBI/SCB/TVM OF 2016

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:

          S.ANITHA, AGED 68 YEARS,
          W/O RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT GAURI NANDANAM
          COLLEGE NAGAR, 227-NEAR THEKEKAVU TEMPLE, AYATHIL P.O,
          KOLLAM, PIN - 691021.
          BY ADVS.
          SRI.C.S.MANU
          SHRI.S.K.PREMRAJ
          SMT.V.SARITHA
          SRI.DILU JOSEPH
          SRI.C.A.ANUPAMAN
          SHRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD
          SMT.NEETHU.K.SHAJI
          SRI.C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR
          SMT.MANJU E.R.
          SHRI.ALINT JOSEPH
          SHRI.PAUL JOSE
          SMT.DAINY DAVIS
          SHRI.MAHESH KUMAR K.

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:


          CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
          REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
          CBI/SPE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN
          RC 06(A)/14/CBI/TVM., PIN - 695001.

          SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CBI,SREELAL.N.WARRIER.


     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.06.2025 ALONG WITH CRL.R.P.NO.633 OF 2025, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                      2025:KER:49691
Crl.R.P.Nos.630 & 633 of 2025                2



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                           PRESENT

                       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

             MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1947

                                CRL.REV.PET NO. 633 OF 2025

 CRIME NO.RC-06(A)/14/CBI/2012 OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

                          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, Thiruvananthapuram

      AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.05.2025 IN CC NO.19 OF 2016 OF
SPECIAL COURT SPE/CBI-I&3 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
           BINOJ S, AGED 47 YEARS
           S/O SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT 'DEVATHEERAM',
           KUZHIVILA, KURAKKANNI, VARKALA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
           DISTRICT, PIN - 695141.

                   BY ADVS.
                   SRI.C.S.MANU
                   SHRI.S.K.PREMRAJ
                   SMT.V.SARITHA
                   SRI.DILU JOSEPH
                   SRI.C.A.ANUPAMAN
                   SHRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD
                   SMT.NEETHU.K.SHAJI
                   SMT.MANJU E.R.
                   SHRI.ALINT JOSEPH
                   SHRI.PAUL JOSE
                   SMT.DAINY DAVIS
                   SHRI.MAHESH KUMAR K.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

                   CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
                   REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                   CBI/SPE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN
                   RC 06(A)/14/CBI/TVM., PIN - 695001.
         THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.06.2025            ALONG     WITH   CRL.R.P.NO.630   OF   2025,   THE   COURT   ON
07.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                        2025:KER:49691
Crl.R.P.Nos.630 & 633 of 2025                 3




                           A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
                  ================================
                       Crl.R.P.Nos.630 and 633 of 2025
                ================================
                      Dated this the 7th day of July, 2025


                                 COMMON            ORDER

These are Revision Petitions at the instance of accused Nos.4 and

3 in C.C.No.19/2016 on the files of Special Judge, (SPE/CBI)-I,

Ernakulam, arising out of Crime No.RC 06(A)/14/CBI/SCB/TVM of

2016. The revision petitioners assail dismissal of discharge petition filed

by the petitioners before the Special Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the order impugned and the

relevant records to consider the plea raised by both sides.

3. In these matters, the prosecution case is that accused

Nos.1 to 4 hatched conspiracy and done the overt acts as under:

"3. The counter officers on duty at the departure side of airport should check passport of passengers by using swiping machine, comparing the photo in the passport with the person by using the Passport Registration and Identification System (PRIDE) 2025:KER:49691

or Passport Information Service on Net (PISON) or Ultra Violet Lamp for its genuineness, date of issue, date of expiry, photo substitution, page alteration etc. They should also check Visa for its genuineness, check for lookout circular (LOC) and check for emigration clearance issued by the Protector of Emigrants (PoE), if the emigrant is with ECR passport and is travelling on employment visa.

4. There were organized trafficking of people from India to Gulf. This was possible through a complicated nexus among travel agents, employees of travel agents, emigration officials and also a few officials who were repatriated to Kerala Police from emigration duties.

5. On getting such information, the Government of Kerala issued notification No.81/2014/Home dated 28.04.2014 and the Government of India issued notification No.228/38/2013/AVD-II dated 27-06-2014, u/s.5 of the Delhi Special Establishment Act. On the basis of such notification, the Central Bureau of Investigation, Thiruvananthapuram registered this case as RC 6/A/2014/CBI/SCB/TVM. Investigation was conducted against 45 persons allegedly involved in the racket.

6. The investigation revealed that there existed organized collection of money by travel agents from passengers, especially those from weaker sections of society, in the pretext of facilitating their emigration clearance. A share of this money was being paid to public servants for facilitating smooth emigration clearance. The extra amount collected by the travel agents helped the unauthorized passengers to travel illegally and also the genuine passengers to travel without the hassles of emigration check. The 2025:KER:49691

Immigration Officers at the counter (Counter Officers) had wide discretionary power to raise objection to travel of even a genuine passenger. On the other hand, the counter officers could illegally clear passengers with forged passports and 'Emigration Clearance Required' category passengers on job visa without the clearance of Protector of Emigrants (PoE). The scope of detection of irregularities in travel documents is only at the emigration check point. The counter officers are duty bound to check the illegal travel.

7. The 1st accused is an Armed Police Sub Inspector of Kerala Police and was working at the immigration wing of CIAL from 26.05.2008 to 24.04.2009. Before that he had worked at the Trivandrum International Airport during 2004-2007. The 3rd accused is an Armed Police Sub Inspector & 4 th accused is a Woman Sub Inspector of Kerala Police and were functioning as Counter Officers at CIAL on different periods. The accused No.2 is a freelance travel agent engaged in the business of servicing of travel documents of emigrant workers proceeding to middle east countries. The accused entered into criminal conspiracy during January 2011 to illegally clear passengers travelling abroad without valid travel documents. In pursuance of the conspiracy, on 19.01.2011 the 2nd accused forwarded 12 other state passengers without valid travel documents to the first accused, and he, exerted undue influence on the 3rd and 4th accused, who were in counter duty and abusing their official position, cleared the passengers to travel abroad without valid travel documents. In furtherance of the conspiracy, the 2 nd accused collected a sum of Rs.19,500/- from the passengers or their representatives and deposited to the account of the first accused as illegal gratification on 20.01.2011 and 02.02.2011."

2025:KER:49691

4. That apart as regards to the 4th accused there is deposit as

under:

Sl.No. Name of the Bank and deposit details Amount 1 Federal Bank, Vadakara Branch (pay-in-slip dated Rs.5,000.00 11.04.2011) 2 Federal Bank, Vadakara Branch (pay-in-slip dated Rs.14,000.00 25.04.2011) 3 Federal Bank, Vadakara Branch (pay-in-slip dated Rs.33,000/-

27.04.2011) 4 Federal Bank, Vadakara Branch (pay-in-slip dated Rs.20,500.00 02.05.2011)

5 Federal Bank, Vadakara Branch (pay-in-slip dated Rs.49,500.00 07.05.2011)

5. The main points argued by the learned counsel for the

petitioners is that the impugned order is perverse and illegal and there is no

prima facie materials to show receipt of any gratification by the petitioners

either directly or indirectly or any form of communication also have not

been collected during investigation in between the petitioners and accused

1 to 3. Apart from that, grounds G and H also were raised while assailing

the order.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed a

decision of this Court reported in [2013 KHC 620 : 2013(4) KLT SN 63],

State v. Ramalingam to contend that while framing charge under Section

227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court has an undoubted power 2025:KER:49691

to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose to find out whether a

prima facie case against the accused has been made out. Paragraph 20 of

the judgment also has been stressed by the learned counsel for the

petitioners. The same reads as under:

"20. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. U. U. Lalit appearing for A4 contended that the above mentioned entries are unilateral documents maintained by an individual and do not necessarily bind the petitioner. The entries discussed above are no doubt entries in the nature of unilateral documents. Another ground alleged on behalf of the CBI relates to relevance of evidence of conspiracy in view of Section 10 of the Evidence Act. The learned Senior Counsel cited the decision of the Apex Court in Kehar Singh and Others v. The State (Delhi Admn.), 1988 KHC 1020: AIR 1988 SC 1883: 1988 (3) SCC 609:1988 SCC (Cri) 711: 1988 (2) KLT SN 47. After referring to Section 120A IPC the Apex Court observed that it is necessary that a prima facie case of conspiracy has to be established for application of Section 10 of the Evidence Act. Once such reasonable ground exists, anything said, done or written by one of the conspirators in furtherance to the common intention, after the said intention was first entertained, is relevant against others. It is relevant against others, not only for the purpose of proving the existence of conspiracy, but also for proving that the other person was a party to it. The Court further observed that it is well settled that act or action of one of the accused could not be used as evidence against the other.

2025:KER:49691

But an exception has been carved out in Section 10 in cases of conspiracy. The second part operates only when the first part of the Section is clearly established i.e., there must be reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together in the light of the language of Section 120A. It is only then the evidence of action or statements made by one of the accused could be used as evidence against the other. The Court also followed the principles of law laid down in Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Maharashtra, 1965 KHC 552: AIR 1965 SC 682: 1964 (2) SCR 378:1965 (1) CriLJ 608. The concept of criminal conspiracy was dealt with in detail at length in Kehar Singh's case. The learned standing counsel also placed reliance on the decision reported in State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi and Others, 2000 KHC 1727: 2000 (8) SCC 239:

2000 SCC (Cri) 1486: AIR 2001 SC 40:2001 CriLJ 124. The Apex Court in the said case held that at the stage of framing of charge the Trial Court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the Court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. At this stage of charge the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused persons. The very same principles were stated in the decisions reported in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, 1977 KHC 676: 1977 (4) SCC 39: 1977 SCC (Cri) 533: AIR 1977 SC 2018: 1977 CriLJ 1606, Indu Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2009 KHC 4361: 2009 (3) SCC (Cri) 996: AIR 2025:KER:49691

2009 SC 976: 2008 (15) SCC 341:2009 CriLJ 951: 2008 (15) SCALE 168 and Firozuddin Basheeruddin v. State of Kerala, 2001 KHC 694: 2001 (3) KLT 189: AIR 2001 SC 3488: 2001 (7) SCC 596: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1341: 2001 CriLJ 4215. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. U. U. Lalit placed reliance on the decisions reported in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another, 1979 KHC 574 1979 (3) SCC 4: 1979 SCC (Cri) 609: AIR 1979 SC 366: 1979 CriLJ 154: 1979 MLJ (Cri) 361 and Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 KHC 1129: 2002 (2) SCC 135: AIR 2002 SC 564: 2002 SCC (Cri) 310: 2002 CriL) 980: 2002 (1) LLN 671 and contended that the judge who is considering the issue has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether the case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. It is also urged that in assessing this fact it is not necessary for the Court to enter into pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. While considering the question of framing charges, the judge has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent also invited the attention of this Court with regard to the evidentiary value of entries relevant under Section 34.

The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decision reported in CBI v. V. C. Shukla and Others, 1998 KHC 570:

1998 (3) SCC 410: 1998 (2) KLT SN 56: 1998 SCC (Cri) 761:

AIR 1998 SC 1406: 1998 CriLJ 1905. It is settled law that the evidentiary value of entries though relevant were only 2025:KER:49691

corroborative evidence and it is to be shown further by some independent evidence that the entries represent honest and real transaction and that monies were paid in accordance with those entries."

7. Strongly opposing interference of the order refusing

discharge, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that prosecution

allegation is that the accused persons herein hatched conspiracy with the

other accused, who were entrusted with the duty of emigration counter

officers and their assistants at Cochin International Airport, in pursuance

of the said criminal conspiracy, engaged in the business of servicing of

travel documents of emigrant workers proceeding to middle east countries

and accepted illegal gratification from them through bank accounts held by

the accused/public servants or their close relatives. The counter officers

on duty at the departure side of the airport should check passport of

passengers for its genuineness by using swiping machine, comparing the

photo in the passport with the person by using the Passport Registration

and Identification System (PRIDE) or Passport Information Service on Net

(PISON) or Ultra Violet Lamp, date of issue, date of expiry, photo

substitution, page alteration etc. They should also check visa for its

genuineness, check for lookout circular (LOC) and check for emigration 2025:KER:49691

clearance issue by the Protector of Emigrants (PoE), if the emigrant is a

passport holder. During investigation it has been revealed that there were

organised trafficking of people from India to Gulf and the same was

possible only through complicated nexus among employees of travel

agents. The specific allegation against each accused is as under:

"7. The 1st accused is an Armed Police Sub Inspector of Kerala Police and was working at the immigration wing of CIAL from 26.05.2008 to 24.04.2009. Before that he had worked at the Trivandrum International Airport during 2004-2007. The 3rd accused is an Armed Police Sub Inspector & 4th accused is a Woman Sub Inspector of Kerala Police and were functioning as Counter Officers at CIAL on different periods. The accused No.2 is a freelance travel agent engaged in the business of servicing of travel documents of emigrant workers proceeding to middle east countries. The accused entered into criminal conspiracy during January 2011 to illegally clear passengers travelling abroad without valid travel documents. In pursuance of the conspiracy, on 19.01.2011 the 2nd accused forwarded 12 other state passengers without valid travel documents to the first accused, and he, exerted undue influence on the 3rd and 4th accused, who were in counter duty and abusing their official position, cleared the passengers to travel abroad without valid travel documents. In furtherance of the conspiracy, the 2nd accused collected a sum of Rs.19,500/- from the passengers or their representatives and deposited to the account of the first accused as illegal gratification on 20.01.2011 and 02.02.2011."

8. Apart from that the learned Standing Counsel for the 2025:KER:49691

C.B.I produced bank slips showing transfer of money in the name of

Binoj.S to the Federal Bank, Vadakara Branch. The specific allegation

against the 3rd and 4th accused is that the 3rd accused, who was working as

the Sub Inspector of Police (General Executive) while working on

deputation in the immigration Department of Cochin International Airport

from 24.03.2009 to 01.12.2009, and the 4th accused, who also worked

during the relevant period, joining hands with the other accused committed

the crime. Main challenge raised by the petitioners is that the 3 rd accused

was not the counter officer on 19.01.2011 but was working as duty officer

and the contention of the 4th accused is that allegations against her are

untrue and baseless. There is no evidence or materials to frame charge

against the 4th accused. In this matter, accused Nos.3 and 4 are public

servants and the other accused are travel agents. The learned Standing

Counsel for the CBI relied on 5 bank slips issued by the Federal Bank,

Vadassery as on 11.04.2011 showing deposit of Rs.50,000/- in the name of

Binoy S, who is the 3rd accused and also 4 other slips viz., pay-in slip dated

25.04.2011 of Rs.14,000/-, pay-in slip dated 24.04.2011 of Rs.33,000/-,

pay-in-slip dated 02.05.2011 for Rs.20,500/- and pay-in-slip dated 2025:KER:49691

07.05.2011 for Rs.49,500/- to show that the petitioners received illegal

gratification from various travel agents. In paragraphs 27 to 30, the

learned Special Judge considered the contentions raised by the petitioners

and found that there are materials to frame charge against accused Nos.1 to

4, including the petitioners, and accordingly charges were framed for the

offences under Section 120B of I.P.C r/w Sections 11 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)

(d) of the PC Act.

9. Opposing interference in the impugned order, the

learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI (Standing Counsel for the

CBI) would submit that when considering the plea of discharge, there

is no mandate that the prosecution allegations to be made out, prima facie,

satisfactorily and even a substance to have some doubt as regards to

the involvement would be sufficient to frame charge against the

accused.

10. In so far as the essentials to be considered while

considering the petition seeking discharge and while framing charge, the

law is well settled.

11. This Court considered the essentials to be considered 2025:KER:49691

while considering discharge sought under Section 227 of Cr.P.C and

framing charge under Section 228 of Cr.P.C, in the decisions reported in

[2024 KHC OnLine 586], Sandeep G. v. State of Kerala, this Court set out

the principle as under, following the Apex Court decisions in this regard.

"(i) Matters to be considered at the time of considering discharge and while framing charge are not aimless etiquette.

Concomitantly the same are not scrupulous exertion. Keeping an equilibrium in between aimless etiquette and scrupulous exertion, the trial judge need to merely examine the materials placed by the prosecution in order to determine whether or not the grounds are sufficient to proceed against the accused on the basis of police charge/final report. The trial Judge shall look into the materials collected by the investigating agency produced before the Court, to see, prima facie, whether those materials would induce suspicious circumstances against the accused, so as to frame a charge and such material would be taken into account for the purposes of framing the charge. If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused necessarily, the accused would be discharged. But if the court is of the opinion, after such consideration of the materials there are grounds for presuming that accused has committed the offence/s which is/are triable, then necessarily charge shall be framed.

(ii) The trial Judge has to apply his judicial mind to the facts of the case, with reference to the materials produced by the prosecution, as may be necessary, to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for trial on the basis of charge/final report.

2025:KER:49691

(iii) Once the accused is able to demonstrate from the materials form part of the charge/final report at the stage of framing the charge which might drastically affect the very sustainability of the case, it is unfair to suggest that such material should not be considered or ignored by the court at this stage. The main intention of granting a chance to the accused of making submissions as envisaged under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. is to assist the court to determine whether it is required to proceed to conduct the trial.

(iv) At the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on an assumption that the materials which have been brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate said materials, in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the materials taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence/s alleged.

(v) The defence of the accused not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks discharge. The expression "the record of the case" used in Section 227 Cr. P.C. is to be understood as the documents and objects, if any, produced by the prosecution. The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the stage of framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is to be confined to the material produced by the prosecution.

(vi) The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of existence of a prima-facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record shall not be evaluated.

(vii) At the stage of framing of charge, the court has to form a presumptive opinion to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep into probative value of the material on record and to check whether the 2025:KER:49691

material on record would certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion of trial.

(viii) In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which are really the function of the trial Judge, after the trial. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the prosecution materials in order to find out whether or not there are sufficient grounds to proceed with trial of the accused.

(ix) Strong suspicion in favour of the accused, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the time of framing charge, if there is suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In such case also charge needs to be framed to permit the prosecution to adduce evidence.

(x) If the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial."

12. On perusal of the prosecution records, it is clear that

accused No.3 is an Armed Police Sub Inspector and the 4 th accused is a

Woman Sub Inspector of Kerala Police and were functioning as counter

officers at CIAL on different periods. Accused No.2 is a freelance travel 2025:KER:49691

agent engaged in the business of servicing of travel documents of emigrant

workers proceeding to middle east countries. As part of conspiracy, during

January, 2011, accused Nos.3 and 4 illegally cleared passengers travelling

abroad without valid travel documents. The specific allegation is that on

19.01.2011, the 2nd accused forwarded 12 other state passengers without valid

travel documents to the 1st accused and he exerted undue influence on the

3rd and 4th accused, who were in counter duty, abusing their official

position, cleared the passengers to travel abroad without valid travel