Kerala High Court
Santhosh Kumar Dubey vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 6 October, 2025
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
-1-
2025:KER:73479
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TH
MONDAY, THE 6 DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 14TH ASWINA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
CRIME NO.RC8(A)/2017 OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, KOCHI, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 01.10.2024 IN CC NO.2 OF 2021 OF
SPECIAL C SPE/CBI- II & 4 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SANTHOSH KUMAR DUBEY
AGED 71 YEARS
NATIONAL QUALITY MONITOR, NATIONAL RURAL ROADS DEVELOPMENT
AGENCY, GOVT. OF INDIA. R/O 74-A, TRIMURTI NAGAR DAMOH NAKA
, JABALPUR MADHYA PRADESH., PIN - 482002
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.SETHUNATH
SRI.V.R.MANORANJAN (MUVATTUPUZHA)
SHRI.SREEGANESH U.
SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (K/1051/2010)
SHRI.LAKSHMINARAYAN.R
SHRI.GAUTHAM KRISHNAN K.G.
SMT.SNEHA MARY SANTHOSH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
ACB, COCHIN, KATHRIKADAVU. KALOOR.P.O.PIN 682017.
REPRESENTED BY C.B.I STANDING COUNSEL HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BY ADV SHRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER,SREELAL N.WARRIER, SPL.PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
OTHER PRESENT:
SPL PP SREELAL N.WARRIER
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2025, THE COURT ON 06.10.2025DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
-2-
2025:KER:73479
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
============================
Crl.Revision. Petition No. 1379 of 2024
==============================
Dated 6th day of October 2025
ORDER
The 1st accused in Crime No.RC8(A) of 2017 of Central Bureau
of Investigation (for short, 'CBI' hereafter) Kochi, Ernakulam has filed
this Criminal Revision Petition challenging the order dated 01.10.2024
in CRMP No.327 of 2023 passed by the Special Judge in a petition filed
under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
'CrPC' hereafter) seeking discharge by the petitioner. Respondent is the
CBI represented by the learned Special Public Prosecutor.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner/1st accused as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for the CBI.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
2025:KER:73479
3. In this case the prosecution alleges commission of offences
punishable under Sections 7, 11, 12 and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(i) (d)
& 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the PC Act,
1988 hereafter) by the accused. The prosecution allegation is that the
petitioner who was empanelled as a National Quality Monitor in
National Rural Road Development Agency and was entrusted with the
inspection of the Roads Built under PMGSY scheme while doing the
said work of quality monitoring in Thrissur and Palakkad districts, had
collected huge amounts from the contractors to the tune of
Rs.2,44,790/- which was found in his pocket and in the open cupboard
in Room No.107 in ATS Residency Hotel, Palakkad and the
investigation revealed that the petitioner had collected the above said
amount by way of illegal means by making illegal demand and accepted
the amount from the contractors in order to give satisfactory completion
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
2025:KER:73479
report of the project to the bribe given and illegally denied satisfactory
report for those had not given bribe and thereby committed the above
mentioned offences.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/1st accused
mainly contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
crime and that the Final Report has been filed without sufficient
supporting materials. It is specifically pointed out by the learned counsel
for the revision petitioner/1st accused that the search conducted in
Room No.107 of ATS Residency Hotel, Palakkad where the
accommodation had been provided by the Department for the stay of
the revision petitioner/1st accused was carried out in violation of Section
100, and more particularly Sections 100(4), 100(5) and 100(6) of the
CrPC. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/1st
accused, even though two witnesses were cited during the search, they
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
2025:KER:73479
were persons brought from places far away from the scene of occurrence,
and their statements do not, in fact, support the conduct of the search in
terms of the statutory mandate. Referring to Section 165 of the CrPC,
the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/1st accused further argued
that every officer conducting a search is required to record in writing the
grounds of his belief and, as far as possible, specify in such writing the
thing for which the search is to be made, and that a search memorandum
must be prepared in this regard. It is pointed out that the said procedure
has been blatantly noticed in the instant case.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/1st accused
placed decisions of the Apex Court and various High Courts viz. AIR
1960 SC 210 State of Rajasthan v. Rehman, AIR 1968 SC 59
Board of Revenue Madras v. R S Jhaver, 1961 (1) Crl.J 828
State of Bihar v. Bipat Gope, AIR 1933 OUDH 305 Sohanlal v.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
2025:KER:73479
Emperor, 2016 (4) KLT 613 Sukumaran v. Sub Inspector of
Police, 1991 Cri.L.J. 1942 Selvan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR
1972 Madras 313 S N Sundaram and Company v. State of
Tamil Nadu and Another, AIR 1968 Delhi 208 State v.
Bhawani Singh and others, 1960 Cri.L.J. 1447 State v. Raijibhai
Chaturbhai Slanki, 1963 (1) Cri.L.J. 669 A P Kuttan Panicker
and others v. State of Kerala , AIR 1971 Madras 275 M S M
Mangudi v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1984 Cri.L.J. 1131
Premchand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 Ajmer 10 Beoparia
and Others v. State of Ajmer, (2016) 12 SCC 150 V Sejappa v.
State by Police Inspector Lokayukta Chitradurga, (2004) 13 SCC
227 State of Andhra Pradesh v. T Venkateswara Rao, 2022 (5)
KLT 433 Ajith Kumar v. State of Kerala, (2022) 4 SCC 574 K.
Shanthamma v. State of Telangana, (2011) 6 SCC 450 State of
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
2025:KER:73479
Kerala and Anther v. C.P. Rao, (2015) 10 SCC 152 P.
Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of
Andhra Pradesh and Another, (1979) 4 SCC 526 Panalal
Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, (1979 ) 4 SCC 725
Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Administration), (1992) 1 SCC 304
Ayya Swami v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2009) 3 SCC 779 C M
Girieesh Babu v. CBI Cochin, High Court of Kerala to contend
that recording of reasons under Section 165 of the CrPC is obligatory--
Non-compliance makes search illegal under Section 165 of the CrPC.
Similarly, a search and seizure carried out in violation of the provisions of
Sections 100 and 165 of the CrPC, without following the procedure
prescribed therein, is illegal. It is further pointed out by the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner/1st accused that, according to the
statement of witness No.19, Dinesh Kumar P., he had paid ₹40,000
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
2025:KER:73479
between 2.00 p.m. and 3.00 p.m., and thereafter stated that, out of this
amount, after accepting ₹30,000, the accused returned ₹10,000.
However, in Ext.D1 First Information Report (for short, "FIR"), these
aspects were already incorporated when the FIR was registered at 4.30
p.m. (16.30 hours), and, as per the copy of the FIR, it was dispatched to
the court at 5.30 p.m. (17.30 hours) on 26.07.2017. It is further pointed
out that the arrest of the petitioner is also illegal. In the arrest memo, the
time of arrest was recorded as 9.30 a.m. (09.30 hours), whereas the
independent witnesses to the arrest have stated that it occurred at 9.00
p.m. But in the remand application, the time of arrest was stated as
09.30 hours. The learned counsel also pointed out that the statements of
the independent witnesses to the search are similarly worded. He has
pointed out that in the statement of Sri.Surendran it was mentioned that
"I and Surendran". This would go to show that the statement of K. M.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
2025:KER:73479
Rameshanunni, the other witness, also was copied as that of
Sri.Surendran. Therefore, the statements recorded as that of
Sri.Surendran and Sri.K.M. Rameshanunni were manipulated, that too
after a week of the alleged search. Apart from this, it is argued that the
prosecution sanction obtained in this case is by playing fraud and the
same cannot be acted upon. The learned counsel for the revision
petitioner/1st accused further drew the attention of this Court to
documents viz. D76, D77, D80, D81 and D82 to contend that, as per
the cover marked as Ext.D82, it would be impossible to include the
amounts allegedly recovered from the accused. This also probabilises the
falsity of the prosecution case. It is also pointed out that Room No. 107
was not in the exclusive possession of the accused as it was provided by
the Department on rent. Highlighting these anomalies, the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner/1st accused argued that these aspects
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
2025:KER:73479
were not considered by the Special Court while considering the plea of
discharge. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner
is entitled to be discharged as prayed for.
6. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI
argued that the revision petitioner/1st accused, a public servant, who
was empanelled as a National Quality Monitor by the National Rural
Roads Development Agency, Ministry of Rural Development,
Government of India, New Delhi, during the period from 17.07.2017 to
26.07.2017, and that it was his duty to inspect the roads and certify
whether they were in safe condition or otherwise. It is pointed out that
the prosecution alleges that in order to issue certificate recording the
work as satisfactory, the accused demanded and accepted bribe from
various persons, including accused Nos. 2 to 5. Pursuant to search a
total sum of ₹2,44,930 was recovered from the petitioner. According to
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
2025:KER:73479
the learned Special Public Prosecutor, when a search was conducted in
the room exclusively occupied by the accused and amounts given by
various persons, including accused Nos. 2 to 5, were recovered as evident
from Ext.D2 proceedings in this crime carried out in Room No. 107 of
the ATS Residency Hotel, Palakkad. Thus from the prosecution records
the offences alleged against the revision petitioner/1st accused under
Sections 7, 11, 12 and 13(2) r/w Sections 13(1)(i)(d) and 15 of the PC
Act, 1988 specifically made out prima facie warranting trial. The learned
Special Public Prosecutor given emphasis to Document No. 2 to show
the recovery, during the search conducted under Section 165 of the
CrPC, of ₹10,000 along with a packet of cardamom from the wooden
almirah in the ATS Residency Hotel, Palakkad; ₹24,500 from the pocket
of the accused's pants together with ₹430 from his purse; ₹30,000 kept
in a black handbag inside the almirah, and ₹1,80,000 from the room.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
2025:KER:73479
That apart, Ext.D5 shows the recovery of ₹24,500 along with ₹430.
Document No. 6 further fortifies the recovery of ₹30,000 from the black
handbag, and Document No. 15 establishes that the accused was
empanelled as a National Quality Monitor (NQM) by the National
Rural Roads Development Agency, Ministry of Rural Development,
Government of India, New Delhi.
7. Apart from the above documents, the learned Special Public
Prosecutor relied on the statements of witnesses 3, 4, 12, 18 and 19 to
substantiate the allegation of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by the accused for issuing a satisfactory certificate, while
threatening that, otherwise, he would issue a "U" (unsatisfactory)
certificate.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
2025:KER:73479
8. The sum and substance of the argument advanced by the
learned Special Public Prosecutor is that, on perusal of the prosecution
records running into about 4,000 pages, the allegations against the
revision petitioner/1st accused are clearly made out prima facie
warranting trial. In view of this, the Special Court rightly dismissed the
discharge petition, and the said order does not require any interference.
9. Having addressed the rival submissions it is to be borne in mind
that what are the matters to be considered at the time of discharge is well
settled. In the decision reported in 2024 KHC OnLine 586
Sandeep G v. State of Kerala, this Court epitomized the
parameters that would govern, when plea of discharge under S.227
of CrPC and framing of charge under S.228 of CrPC are to be
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
2025:KER:73479
addressed, referring the Apex Court verdicts on the point and the
same are as under:
(i) 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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
2025:KER:73479
(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
S.227 CrPC is to be understood as the documents and objects, if any,
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 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.
(ix) 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
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
2025:KER:73479
that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient
ground for proceeding with the trial.
10. No doubt the same is the matters to be considered in warrant
trial cases also.
11. Coming to the crux of the matter in fact, the majority
contentions raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner were raised before the special court and were considered by the
Special Court. The Special Court addressed these arguments and found
that they were matters of evidence to be considered at the time of trial.
The learned Special Judge further found that there were sufficient
materials, including the telephone conversations between the revision
petitioner/1st accused and the contractors/others, which would clearly
indicate that the revision petitioner/1st accused had demanded illegal
gratification and accepted the same as alleged by the prosecution. The
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
2025:KER:73479
samples obtained during investigation were sent to the FSL for voice
analysis, and the documents produced by the Investigating Officer
would support this finding. For these reasons, the Special Court was not
inclined to allow the discharge petition.
12. On perusal of Ext.D1 FIR the same was registered at 16.30
hours on 26.07.2017 and the same was forwarded to the court at 17.30
hours. In Ext.D2 proceedings were drawn in this crime at Room
No.107 of ATS Residency Hotel, Palakkad. It was stated that the
proceedings started at 09.00 p.m. on 26.07.2017 and concluded at 05.30
a.m. on 27.07.2017. It is true that as per Ext.D7 search list the date and
hour of search were recorded as 26.07.2017 20.30 hours to 27.07.2017 at
04.00 hours. So it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner/1st accused that Exts.D7 and D2 would not tally. On perusal
of Ext.D2 it is discernible that as stated by witness No.19 the accused
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
2025:KER:73479
obtained an amount or Rs.30,000/- as bribe from witness No.19 who
represented M/s Anai Infra, Rs.10,000/- from one Mr.Kunjumon the
representative of the contractor Sri.Ibrahim kutty arrayed as A5. Further
the accused collected amounts from various contractors at Hotel Elite
International, Thrissur in connection with the inspection in Thrissur.
The number of the notes recovered from the accused were specifically
narrated in Ext.D2.
13. According to the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner/1st accused in a small room eleven persons were gathered,
then made the accused in a helpless condition and they have made false
recoveries to attribute him for the offences alleged against him. In
Ext.D5 arrest memo it was stated that the accused was arrested at
26.07.2017 at 09.30 hours and at the time Rs.24,500/- was recovered
from his pants pocket along with Rs.430/- which was recovered from
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
2025:KER:73479
the purse kept in his pants pocket. Apart from that he possessed two
mobile phones and the numbers of the same also specifically described in
the mahazar. Ext.D6 is the recovery mahazar. As already pointed out
Ext.D7 is the search list where Sri.Surendran S and Sri.Rameshanunni came
were cited as witnesses. It is true that in the statement recorded by
Sri.Surendran S also is stated that "I and Surendran". Pointing out these
anomalies, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/1st accused
argued that this happened because the statements were not recorded by
the Investigating Officer and the above statements were falsely prepared
by the searching officer. Prima facie this is an impossibility, but this
would require proof by examining the author thereof as well as the
officer who recorded the same and this anomaly could not be reckoned
as a reason to discharge the accused.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
2025:KER:73479
14. On perusal of the prosecution records it is true that Sections
100 and 165 of the CrPC have applications in respect of search provided
therein. In the instant case the prosecution case is that search was
conducted by following the procedure under Section 165 of the CrPC
and they have produced Ext.D7 search list and Ext.D6 recovery mahazar
apart from Ext.D2 proceedings. Even though the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner/1st accused argued based on documents D77 to D88
to doubt the recovery, in fact those aspects could not be considered at
the pre-trial stage since they are matters of evidence to be addressed on
completion of the trial.
15. It is a well settled principle of law that a court considering
prosecution materials for the purpose of considering plea of discharge
would not conduct a mini-trial and reach its conclusions without
relegating the said aspects to be done by the trial court after adducing
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
2025:KER:73479
evidence. To put it otherwise when the prosecution materials prima
facie would show the prosecution allegation or at least a strong suspicion the
same are sufficient to proceed with trial, though a mere suspicion alone is
insufficient on this count. On bearing these fundamental tenets in mind
when the case at hand is analysed, it could be seen that the prosecution
materials would substantiate prima facie that the allegation raised by the
prosecution against the revision petitioner specifically made out prima
facie, warranting trial. As far as the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner are concerned, as observed by the
special court, the same could not be considered at the pre-trial stage and
are matters to be considered after adducing evidence. Thus keeping
liberty of the revision petitioner to raise these contentions during trial
and after trial, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
2025:KER:73479
16. Therefore this revision petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
The interim order of stay stands vacated and the special court is
directed to expedite the trial without much delay.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
RMV
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1379 OF 2024
2025:KER:73479
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 1379/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
21.06.2025 ISSUED BY THE BEST SUPER SPECIALTY
HOSPITAL, JABALPUR, MADHYA PRADESH
