Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala Represented By The ... vs O Subramanian on 31 October, 2025
2025:KER:82391
CRL.REV.PET NOS.173, 316 & 358 OF 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025/9TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 173 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 355/2018 IN CC NO.7 OF
2011 OF ENQUIRY COMR.& SPECIAL JUDGE,KZD.
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY SRI.RAJESH A,SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB
SMT.REKHA S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.3:
SAMEER NAVAS
S/O KOYA HAJI KUNDUPUZHAKKAL HOUSE,OORAKAM,
KUZHIMURI, MALAPPURAM., PIN - 676519
BY ADVS.
SHRI.A.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA
SHRI.ABHILASH A J
SHRI.SUHAIL ALI.A
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 21.10.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.316/2023
AND 358/2023, THE COURT ON 31.10.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025/9TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 316 OF 2023
CRIME NO.2/2008 OF VACB, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2021 IN CMP NO.59 OF
2018 OF ENQUIRY COMMR & SPECIAL JUDGE, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY SRI.RAJESH A,SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB
SMT.REKHA S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NOS.1&2:
1 ADOOR PRAKASH
S/O.KUNHIRAMAN ,RAMANILAYAM, ADOOR (FORMER
MINISTER FOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, KERALA).,
PIN - 691523
2 V.RAJU
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KOCHUVEEDU, THATTAMALA, KOLLAM
(FORMER PRIVATE SECRETARY TO MINISTER FOR FOOD
AND CIVIL SUPPLIES)., PIN - 691020
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.AJAY
SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER
SHRI.V.P.PRASAD
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 21.10.2025 ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.173/2023 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 31.10.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 358 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN CC NO.7 OF 2011 OF
ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BY SRI.RAJESH A,SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB
SMT.REKHA S., SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:
1 O SUBRAMANIAN
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O RARUKUTTY, MANU VIHAR,
EAST PONNIAM, THALASSERY, KANNUR DIST. ( FORMER
TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KOZHIKODE), PIN - 670641
2 K R SAHADEVAN
AGED ABOUT 71 S/O VASU, POOTHERIPURAYIL HOUSE,
FEROKE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ( FORMER TALUK
SUPPLY OFFICER, KOZHIKODE), PIN - 673301
BY ADV SRI.SHARAN SHAHIER
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 21.10.2025, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.173/2023,
316/2023, THE COURT ON 31.10.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
4
CR
COMMON ORDER
Dated this the 31st day of October, 2025
Criminal revision petition Nos.358/2023 and
173/2023 have been filed by the State of Kerala, arraying
accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.7/2011 as well as the 3rd
accused in C.C.No.7/2011 respectively on the files of the
Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode,
aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Special Judge
dated 30.09.2021 in CMP No.60/2018, whereby accused
Nos.1 to 3 were discharged.
2. Criminal revision petition No.316/2023 has
been filed by the State of Kerala, arraying accused Nos.1
and 2 in C.C.No.6/2011 pending before the Enquiry
Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode. The challenge
in this revision petition also is against the order allowing
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
discharge plea of accused Nos.1 and 2 in this case.
3. Heard the learned Special Public
Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for the
party respondents in detail. Perused the prosecution records
as well as the orders impugned.
4. In this matter, C.C.No.6/2011 as well as
C.C.No.7/2011 arose out of crime No.VC No.02/2008 of
VACB, Northern Range, Kozhikode. The said crime was
registered on 20.02.2008, when CMP No.199/2007 filed by
one Sri.P.C.Sachithran before the Enquiry Commissioner
and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, was referred for
investigation after conducting preliminary enquiry regarding
the truth of the allegations in the said complaint. After
investigation, the Deputy Superintendent of VACB, Northern
Range, Kozhikode, filed two charges, viz., A charge and B
charge. 'A' charge is against accused Nos. 1 and 2 under
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
Sections 7, 12 and 15 r/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act,
1988' for short) and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short). 'B' charge is one filed
under Section 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and
Sections 468, 471 and 120B of IPC against accused No.3 -
Sri.Subramanian, accused No.4 - Sri.Sahadevan and accused
No.5, Sri.Sameer Navas. The Special Judge took cognizance
of the offences under Sections 7, 12 and 15 r/w. 13(1)(d) of the
PC Act, 1988 and Section 120B of the IPC against accused
No.1 - Sri.Adoor Prakash and accused No.2 - Sri. V. Raju as
C.C.No.6/2011 based on 'A' Charge. Based on 'B' Charge, the
learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences
punishable under Section 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(d) of PC
Act, 1988 and Sections 468, 471 and 120B of IPC against
other accused persons arrayed as accused in
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
C.C.No.7/2011.
5. While so, after filing the Final Report,
alleging that new materials had been brought to the notice of
the Investigating Officer, he filed CMP Nos.108/2011 and
109/2011 under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short),
seeking further investigation in the matter. While these
petitions were pending before the Special Court, one Mr. Joy
Kaitharath filed a petition before this Court seeking to quash
the order directing further investigation by issuance of a Writ
of Certiorari. This Court, as per order dated 01.01.2014 in
W.P.(C) No.25740/2011, directed the learned Special Judge
to consider the request from the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Vigilance, after hearing the affected parties.
Thereafter, the learned Special Judge, as per order dated
05.12.2014, allowed the request for further investigation in
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
the matter. During further investigation, 13 witnesses were
questioned and perused 10 documents. Statements of CW1
- Sri.Abdurahiman and CW3 - Sri.P.C. Sachithran under
Section 164 Cr.P.C were also recorded. Thereupon, a further
investigation report was filed before the Special Court after
obtaining necessary sanction from the Director, VACB.
6. While impeaching the veracity of two orders
passed by the learned Special Judge, the learned Public
Prosecutor would submit that the learned Special Judge
considered the inconsistencies in the statements of CW1 as
well as CW2 by conducting a mini trial to hold that the
prosecution records are insufficient to frame charge and
accordingly, the respondents were discharged. It is pointed
out by the learned Public Prosecutor that at the time of
framing charge or at the stage of Section 528 Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the special court has no
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
power to conduct a mini trial by weighing the evidence in
detail and in this regard, the learned Public Prosecutor
placed decision of the Apex Court in State of Odisha v.
Pratima Mohanty, reported in 2021 KHC 6826 with
reference to paragraph No.6, which reads as under and the
legal position is not in dispute.
"6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that
by the impugned judgment and order the High Court in
exercise of its powers under S.482 Cr. P. C. has
quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences
under S.13(2) read with S.13(1)(d) of the Act and
S.420 read with S.120B IPC. From the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court, it
appears that the High Court has entered into the
merits of the allegations and has conducted the mini -
trial by weighing the evidence in detail which, as such,
as observed and held by this Court in a catena of
decisions is wholly impermissible. As held by this
Court in the case of State of Haryana And Others vs
Ch. Bhajan Lal And Others, AIR 1992
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
SC 604, the powers under S.482 Cr. P. C. could be
exercised either to prevent an abuse of process of any
court and/or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In
the said decision this Court had carved out the
exceptions to the general rule that normally in exercise
of powers under S.482 Cr. P. C. the criminal
proceedings / FIR should not be quashed. Exceptions
to the above general rule are carved out in para 102 in
Bhajan Lal (supra) which reads as under:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Art.226 or the inherent powers under
S.482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein
such power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
and sufficiently channelized and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the
first information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview
of S.155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do
not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non cognizable 42 PART E offence, no
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated
under S.155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the
FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or
the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and / or where
the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge"
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
7. This legal position is not in dispute.
8. Apart from that, the learned Public
Prosecutor pointed out that there was conspiracy in between
the accused to grant licence in the name of the 3 rd accused in
C.C.No.7/2011 without following the rules. Thus, the offences
alleged are made out, prima facie, necessitating trial. In this
connection, the learned Public Prosecutor placed decision of
the Apex Court in Rajiv Kumar v. State of U.P.and
Another reported in 2017 KHC 6522 SC, with reference to
paragraph No.42. In addition to that, the learned Public
Prosecutor read out the relevant portions of the statements of
CW1, recorded two times, as well as his statement recorded
under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. along with the statement of
CW2 who had accompanied CW1. It was alleged that a
demand of ₹25 lakh was made by Sri Adoor Prakash, the 1st
accused in C.C.No.6/2011. The learned Public Prosecutor
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
pointed out the essentials required to constitute an offence
under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988, with reference to the
decision of the Apex Court in Devinder Kumar Bansal v.
State of Punjab reported in 2025 KHC 6219 (SC), wherein the
Apex court considered a case in which the facts are as under:
"Petitioner, serving as an Audit Inspector, was
accused of demanding illegal gratification in
connection with an audit of development work
conducted during the tenure of complainant's wife as
Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The co-accused
was caught red-handed while allegedly accepting
the bribe on behalf of the petitioner, and an audio
recording further corroborated the demand. High
Court denied anticipatory bail, citing strong
evidence, including the co-accused's admission and
recorded conversation. Question that arose for
consideration was whether petitioner, accused of
corruption under S.7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and S.61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, was entitled to anticipatory bail
despite that incriminating evidence"
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
9. In the said judgment, the Apex Court, in
paragraphs 11 to 13, further observed as under:
"11. Thus, in an offence under S.7 of the Act, 1988,
the points requiring proof are:
(i) that, the accused at the time of the offence
was, or expected to be, a public servant;
(ii) that, he accepted or retained or agreed to
accept, or attempted to obtain from some
person a gratification;
(iii) that, such gratification was not a legal
remuneration due to him:
(iv) that, he accepted such gratification as a
motive or reward, proof of which is essential
for
(a) doing or forbearing to do an official act,
or
(b) showing or forbearing to show favour
or disfavour to someone in exercise of
his official functions, or
(c) rendering or attempting to render any
service, or disservice to someone, with
the legislative or executive
government, or with any public servant.
12. Further it is seen that, S.7 speaks of the
"attempt" to obtain a bribe as being in itself
an offence. Mere demand or solicitation,
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
therefore, by a public servant amounts to
commission of an offence under S.7 of the
P.C. Act. The word "attempt" is to imply no
more than a mere solicitation, which, again
may be made as effectually in implicit or in
explicit terms.
13. Actual exchange of a bribe is not an essential
requirement to be prosecuted under this law.
Further, those public servants, who do not
take a bribe directly, but, through middlemen
or touts, and those who take valuable things
from a person with whom they have or are
likely to have official dealings, are also
punishable as per S.10 and S.11 of the Act
1988 respectively."
10. Whereas, it is argued by the learned
counsel appearing for Sri.Adoor Prakash that, in this matter,
the application put up by CW1, Sri. Abdurahiman, was not
considered for the purpose of issuing licence since he was
found not to be a resident of the locality, as one of the
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
conditions for allotment of licence is that "candidates should
normally be a resident of the locality". According to the
learned counsel for the 1st accused, Sri.Adoor Prakash, none
of the offences is made out in this case and alleging
malpractices on the part of the 2nd accused, Sri.V.Raju, in
C.C.No.6/2011, he was suspended and thereafter, this Court,
as per judgment dated 30.01.2009 in WP(C) No.33565 of
2008, set aside the order. It is pointed out by the learned
counsel for the 1st accused further that even though the
licence was allotted in the name of Sri.Sameer Navas,
thereafter, by the intervention of the Court, the same was
referred for re-consideration and in turn, allotted to CW1,
Sri.Abdurahiman by the new government.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the other
accused also shared this argument and justified the order of
the Special court granting discharge.
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
12. While addressing whether the learned
Special judge went wrong in passing the orders impugned by
discharging the respective accused persons, it is relevant to
note that five applicants, including CW1 and Sri.Sameer
Navas, applied for the licence. Out of which, two applicants
were found to be not qualified. Acting on the applications of
the other three persons, the Taluk Supply Officer, in the
prescribed proforma, recommended the applications of
Sri.Abdurahiman (CW1), Sri.Sameer Navas and
Sri.K.N.Suresh Kumar, subject to eligibility. Some remarks
were made with respect to the godown proposed by CW1
and K.N.Suresh Kumar. It was reported that CW1 was not a
resident of the locality and he was a resident of Karassery
Panchayat. The Taluk Supply Officer also recommended that
Sri.Sasidharan and Sri.Sayid Jiffri withdrew their applications.
The application of CW1, in fact, recommended by the Taluk
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
Supply Officer, who is arrayed as 2nd accused in
C.C.No.6/2011. Later, the District Collector, Kozhikode,
Smt.Rachana Shah, invited all four applicants except
Sri.Sasidharan for interview and thereafter, the District
Collector rejected the application of Sri.N.K.Abdurahiman,
and the reasons for rejection are twofold. The first reason
was that he was residing in another Panchayat, and the
second was that his godown was situated away from the
main road, and the road leading to the godown from the main
road was too narrow to carry vehicles with a load. Thereafter,
the District Collector allotted the licence in favour of Sri.
Sameer Navas. The prosecution did not raise any contention
that the District Collector committed any of the offences.
Thus, it appears that, though the Taluk Supply Officer and, in
turn, the District Supply Officer submitted their reports
without specifically opposing the application in respect of CW1,
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
the licence in favour of CW1 was rejected by the District
Collector for the reasons stated above.
13. The question arises for consideration in the
above circumstances is that whether the offences alleged by
the prosecution under Sections 7, 12 and 15 r/w Section 13(1)
(d) of the PC Act, 1988 and under Section 120B of IPC are
made out as against accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.6/2011
and the offences under Sections 13(1)(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC
Act, 1988 as well as under Sections 468, 471 and 120B of IPC
are made out against accused No.3 in C.C.No.7/2011.
Similarly, the offences alleged against accused Nos.1 and 2 in
C.C.No.7/2011 are made out prima facie.
14. In the 1st statement given by CW1 -
Sri.Abdurahiman, on 09.06.2008, CW1 stated that when he
applied for Wholesale Depot licence in Omassery, Sri.Adoor
Prakash demanded ₹30 lakh for allotting the same. In 164
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
Cr.P.C. statement, recorded as that of CW1, as on
03.03.2009, he stated that he repeated the demand made on
03.12.2005 and 06.12.2005. Apart from the above
statements of CW1, CW2 who is none other than
Sri.AjithKumar who accompanied CW1 also given statement
regarding the demand of ₹30 lakh. On perusal of the
statement given by CW1, he has given statement that on
03.12.2005 he obtained an appointment at 3 pm to meet
Sri.Adoor Prakash at his official residence (Rose House)
along with CW2 and in the discussion, it was informed that a
person from Malappuram also applied for Depot licence and
they offered ₹30 lakh for the same. But CW1 being a party
worker was given concession of ₹5 lakh therefrom and ₹25
lakh was demanded. His version further is that, the Private
Secretary to the Minister invited the District Supply Officer as
well as the Taluk Supply Officer and deputed the rationing
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
control officer to the office of the Minister and obtained a
report against him and a report in favour of Sri.Sameer
Navas. In this matter, at a later stage, CW1 sent a letter to
the Dy.S.P. (date is not legible) stating that the licence would
be allotted by the District Collector and the Civil Supplies
Department Minister, could not do anything in this regard as
stated by the Minister and also he deviated from his earlier
statement that the Minister demanded money or anything
from him.
15. Going through the impugned orders, the
learned Special Judge, addressed the issue at length in
minute niceties. It could be seen from the prosecution
records, as already observed that, in this matter, the District
Collector, passed the order in favour of Sri.Sameer Navas,
adverting to the report of the Taluk Supply Officer and District
Supply Officer including the name of the CW1. Subsequently,
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
some interference therein also was found and later, the same
was allotted to CW1 itself. In sofar as the offences under
Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 as well as
under Sections 468, 471 and 120B of IPC, the special court
found that none of the offences could be found from the
prosecution records to proceed further.
16. Going by the decision in Devinder Kumar
Bansal' case (supra), the Apex Court while considering grant
of anticipatory bail to the petitioner therein, who was a co-
accused, made certain observations in paragraph Nos.11,
12, and 13.
17. It is true that, as per Section 7 of the PC
Act, 1988, the demand for illegal gratification itself is
sufficient to justify registration of an FIR alleging commission
of offences punishable under Section 7 as well as under
Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988.
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
However, the law is well settled with respect to the
ingredients required to establish these offences.
18. Now, it is necessary to address the
ingredients required to attract the offences under Section 7
and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988.
The same are extracted as under:-
Section 7:- Public servant taking gratification
other than legal remuneration in respect of an
official act. - Whoever, being, or expecting to be
a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to
accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for
himself or for any other person, any gratification
whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a
motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any
official act or for showing or forbearing to show,
in the exercise of his official functions, favour or
disfavour to any person or for rendering or
attempting to render any service or disservice to
any person, with the Central Government or any
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
State Government or Parliament or the
Legislature of any State or with any local
authority, corporation or Government Company
referred to in clause (C) of section 2, or with any
public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall
be punishable with imprisonment which shall be
not less than three years but which may extend
to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 13:- Criminal misconduct by a public
servant. - (1) A public servant is said to commit
the offence of criminal misconduct,-
a) xxxxx
(b) xxxxx
(c) xxxxxx
(d) If he,- (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains
for himself or for any other person any valuable
thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing
his position as a public servant, obtains for
himself or for any other person any valuable thing
or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding
office as a public servant, obtains for any person
any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage
without any public interest. Xxxxx
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal
misconduct shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall be not less
than four years but which may extend to ten
years and shall also be liable to fine.
19. In this connection, it is relevant to refer a 5 Bench
decision of the Apex Court in [AIR 2023 SC 330], Neeraj Dutta
v. State, where the Apex Court considered when the demand
and acceptance under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 to be said
to be proved along with ingredients for the offences under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and in
paragraph No.68, it has been held as under :
"68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion
is summarised as under:
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in
issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in
order to establish the guilt of the accused public
servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and (ii)
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the
accused, the prosecution has to first prove the
demand of illegal gratification and the
subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This
fact in issue can be proved either by direct
evidence which can be in the nature of oral
evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the
proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification can also be proved by circumstantial
evidence in the absence of direct oral and
documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue,
namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by the public servant, the following
aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by
the bribe giver without there being any
demand from the public servant and
the latter simply accepts the offer and
receives the illegal gratification, it is a
case of acceptance as per Section 7 of
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
the Act. In such a case, there need not
be a prior demand by the public
servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the
public servant makes a demand and
the bribe giver accepts the demand
and tenders the demanded
gratification which in turn is received
by the public servant, it is a case of
obtainment. In the case of obtainment,
the prior demand for illegal gratification
emanates from the public servant. This
is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i)
and (ii) of the Act
iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii)
above, the offer by the bribe giver and
the demand by the public servant
respectively have to be proved by the
prosecution as a fact in issue. In other
words, mere acceptance or receipt of
an illegal gratification without anything
more would not make it an offence
under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d),
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
(i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.
Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act,
in order to bring home the offence,
there must be an offer which emanates
from the bribe giver which is accepted
by the public servant which would
make it an offence. Similarly, a prior
demand by the public servant when
accepted by the bribe giver and in turn
there is a payment made which is
received by the public servant, would
be an offence of obtainment under
Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the
Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard
to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of
an illegal gratification may be made by a court of
law by way of an inference only when the
foundational facts have been proved by relevant
oral and documentary evidence and not in the
absence thereof. On the basis of the material on
record, the Court has the discretion to raise a
presumption of fact while considering whether the
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
fact of demand has been proved by the
prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of
fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in
the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns
'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his
evidence during trial, demand of illegal
gratification can be proved by letting in the
evidence of any other witness who can again let
in evidence, either orally or by documentary
evidence or the prosecution can prove the case
by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not
abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of
the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is
concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue,
Section 20 mandates the court to raise a
presumption that the illegal gratification was for
the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned
in the said Section. The said presumption has to
be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a
presumption in law. Of course, the said
presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
20 does not apply to Section 13(1) (d) and (ii) of
the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in
law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from
presumption of fact referred to above in point (e)
as the former is a mandatory presumption while
the latter is discretionary in nature."
20. Thus, the legal position as regards to the
essentials under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC
Act, 1988, is extracted above. Regarding the mode of proof
of demand of bribe, if there is an offer to pay bribe by the
bribe giver without there being any demand from the public
servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives
the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per
Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior
demand by the public servant. The presumption of fact with
regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an
illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
an inference only when the foundational facts have been
proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in
the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record,
the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact
while considering whether the fact of demand has been
proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption
of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the
absence of rebuttal presumption stands. The mode of proof
of demand and acceptance is either orally or by documentary
evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by
circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it
result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of
the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a
presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose
of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal
presumption or a presumption in law.
21. In this context, it is relevant to refer the
decision of this Court in Sunil Kumar K. v. State of Kerala
reported in [2025 KHC OnLine 983], in Crl.Appeal
No.323/2020, dated 12.9.2025, wherein in paragraph No. 12,
it was held as under:
"12. Indubitably in Neeraj Dutta's case
(supra) the Apex Court held in paragraph No.69
that there is no conflict in the three judge Bench
decisions of this Court in B.Jayaraj and
P.Satyanarayana Murthy with the three judge
Bench decision in M.Narasinga Rao, with regard
to the nature and quality of proof necessary to
sustain a conviction for offences under Section 7
or 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, when the direct
evidence of the complainant or "primary evidence"
of the complainant is unavailable owing to his
death or any other reason. The position of law
when a complainant or prosecution witness turns
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
"hostile" is also discussed and the observations
made above would accordingly apply in light of
Section 154 of the Evidence Act. In view of the
aforesaid discussion there is no conflict between
the judgments in the aforesaid three cases.
Further in Paragraph No.70 the Apex Court held
that in the absence of evidence of the complainant
(direct/primary,oral/documentary evidence) it is
permissible to draw an inferential deduction of
culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7
and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act based on
other evidence adduced by the prosecution. In
paragraph No.68 the Apex Court summarized the
discussion. That apart, in State by Lokayuktha
Police's case (supra) placed by the learned
counsel for the accused also the Apex Court
considered the ingredients for the offences
punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)
of the PC Act,1988 and held that demand and
acceptance of bribe are necessary to constitute
the said offences. Similarly as pointed out by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in Aman
Bhatia's case (supra) the Apex court reiterated
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
the same principles. Thus the legal position as
regards to the essentials to be established to
fasten criminal culpability on an accused are
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by
the accused. To put it otherwise, proof of demand
is sine qua non for the offences to be established
under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC
Act, 1988 and dehors the proof of demand the
offences under the two Sections could not be
established. Therefore mere acceptance of any
amount allegedly by way of bribe or as undue
pecuniary advantage or illegal gratification or the
recovery of the same would not be sufficient to
prove the offences under the two Sections in the
absence of evidence to prove the demand."
22. On a plain reading of Section 7 of the PC
Act, 1988, an attempt to obtain from any person, for himself
or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other
than legal remuneration is sufficient to constitute an offence
under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988. The Apex Court also
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
expressed the same view in Devinder Kumar Bansal
(supra) after discussing the essentials. Thus, it was held
that actual exchange of bribe is not an essential
requirement to prosecute an accused under Section 7 of the
PC Act, 1988. Similarly, those public servants who do not
take a bribe directly, but through middlemen or touts, and
those who accept valuable things from a person with whom
they have or are likely to have official dealings, are also
punishable under Sections 10 and 11 of the PC Act, 1988.
Here, the statement of CW1 is that, Sri.Adoor Prakash
demanded ₹30 lakh from him and later, reduced the same
to ₹25 lakh for issuing the licence. CW2 also given
statement in this regard. However, the question is whether
this allegation is justifiable from the facts of the case
divulged. As already pointed out, the District Collector was
the person who passed order in favour of Sri.Sameer Navas
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
and denied the same to CW1. When allegation demanding
bribe by a minister is raised, merely on the basis of oral
statements, the same would require thorough scrutiny as
false implication of persons holding higher posts, including
Ministers, merely by oral statements could not be ruled out
due to animosity arose out of failure in getting the demand
or need of the complainant. To put it otherwise, anybody
who is having grudge against the Minister or a higher official
can simply asserts that he had demanded bribe on a
particular day for doing something. Then the substance of
the allegation to be evaluated based on the circumstances
which stemmed into the allegation of demand of illegal
gratification. When the allegation of demand of illegal
gratification is raised by a person merely relying on his oral
statement alone without any other cogent materials to see
the bonafides of the allegation of demand after getting failed
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
to achieve their goal, the oral allegation to be adjudged as an
afterthought to wreck vengeance against the officer, unless
any other cogent materials brought out in support of the
allegations. Such an exercise is permissible to avoid abuse
of the process of the court and to avoid false implication of
higher officials and such an exercise is not a mini trial, but
only evaluation of prosecution materials and the attending
circumstances based on the prosecution records to satisfy
prime facie, whether the allegations have the legs to stand on.
23. Here, non-grant of licence to CW1 is the
substratum where from the allegation of demand for bribe
emerges. CW1 did not raise any complaint before getting a
rejection order disallowing license he urged for. If the
allegation is having truth, CW1 should have raised a
complaint within a reasonable time, without waiting for the
outcome of the proceedings. In such a case, once it is found
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
by the prosecution records, that the licence was denied by
the District Collector for valid reasons stated by him, in the
proceedings for license, demand of bribe by the Minister, that
too, without arraying any allegation against the District
Collector, would posit false implication of the accused
persons. Thus, the allegations raised by the complainant as
to demand of bribe by Sri.Adoor Prakash and the
involvement of the other accused are found to be not made
out prima facie or not even a strong suspicion could be
gathered. A mere suspicion would not suffice the requirement
to go for trial. On appraisal of the order passed by the
learned Special Judge, in the context of events discussed, I
am not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned and as
such, the orders are confirmed.
In the result, these revision petitions fail and are
dismissed.
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order
to the special court forthwith.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
nkr
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 173/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF CRL.MP NO 355/2018
IN CC NO 07/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
COURT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND
SPECIAL JUDGE,KOZHIKODE
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 316/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER
DATED 30.09.2021.IN C.M.P NO. 59/2018
ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF THE
ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE
,KOZHIKODE
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED
BY SRI. B.P. MUHAMMED ABDUL RASHEED
BEFORE THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER, VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT UNDER
THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED
17.1.2025.
ANNEXURE 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SRI B.P.
MUHAMMED ABDUL RASHEED BY THE STATE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, VIGILANCE
DEPARTMENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT DATED 25.1.2025
ANNEXURE.3 A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.
323/2022/HOME DATED 8.2.2022
ANNEXURE.4 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.
2421/2022/HOME DATED 29.8.2022
2025:KER:82391
CRL.R.P.NOS.173, 316 &
358 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 358/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF CMP 60/2018 IN CC
07/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF
THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL
JUDGE, KOZHIKODE
