[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Yaser Arafat .K vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation on 25 February, 2026
2026:KER:16934
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 162 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2025 IN CMP 613/2025 IN CC NO.1
OF 2023 OF ADDITIONAL SPECIAL SESSIONS COURT (SPE/CBI CASES)-III,
ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN CRL.M.P/ACCUSED NO.3:
YASER ARAFAT.K,
AGED 47 YEARS,
S/O ABDUL RAZAK. K KARANATH HOUSE, THERATTAMMAL
URINGATTIRI POST, AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673639.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH
SHRI.RENOY VINCENT
SRI.SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI
SHRI.CHELSON CHEMBARATHY
SHRI.ABEE SHEJIRIK FASLA N.K
SMT.NANDA SURENDRAN
SHRI.SAHAL SHAJAHAN
SHRI.AQUIN KURUVILLA TOM
SHRI.M.N.MOHAMMED HUSSAIN
SMT.NAFIYA SHAHALA C.K.
SMT.AYISHA RISWANA
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN CRL.M.P/STATE:
THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH, COCHIN REPRESENTED BY THE
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031.
BY ADV SHRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER, SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.02.2026, THE COURT ON 25.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
"C.R"
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
Crl.R.P No.162 of 2026-A1
================================
Dated this the 25th day of February, 2026
ORDER
Accused No.3 in CC No.1/2023 on the files of the Additional
Special Sessions Court (SPE/CBI Cases)-III, Ernakulam (`Special Court'
hereinafter for short), has filed this Revision Petition under Section 438
and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (`BNSS' for
short hereinafter), challenging the order dated 31.12.2025 in
C.M.P.No.613/2025 in the above case, whereby the learned Special Judge
dismissed the discharge petition filed by the revision petitioner/ accused
No.3.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as
well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Central
Bureau of Investigation. Perused the records.
3. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences
punishable under Sections 120B r/w 409 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC'
for short hereinafter) as well as under Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, as amended 2018 (`PC Act, 2018' for short
hereinafter). The revision petitioner herein is the 3 rd accused in the above
case. The prosecution case is that accused Nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 7 and 9 to 13,
as public servants had received illegal gratification from the passengers for
releasing their dutiable goods, without imposing customs duty and penalty
as on 11/01/2021 and 12/01/2021. Accused No.4 alleged to have
conspired with other customs officials in the array of accused to withhold
contraband articles illegally, without confiscating or making entry of the
same in the Books of Accounts and thereby they alleged to have
committed the offence of criminal breach of trust punishable u/s. 409 of
IPC. As far as the 8th accused is concerned, the allegation by the
prosecution is that he directed the passengers to collect the passports from
the customs officials in the customs room and other places, facilitating the
other delinquent customs officials to collect illegal gratification from the
passengers and thereafter to release their goods and passport without
confiscating it or imposing customs duty. As far as accused Nos. 1 to 3, 5
to 7 and 9 to 13 are concerned, the specific allegation of the prosecution is
that, they have collected bribe from the passengers, committed criminal
breach of trust in respect of the seized articles and also permitted the
passengers to get release of their goods without imposing customs duty or
penalty. Thus accused Nos. 1 to 30 alleged to have committed the offence
punishable u/ss.120 B r/w. 409 IPC and sec. 7, 8 and 12 of the PC Act,
2018, i.e the public servants alleged to have committed the offence
punishable u/s. 120 B r/w. 409 IPC and sec. 7 of the PC Act, 1988 and the
remaining accused/passengers alleged to have committed the offences
punishable u/s. 8 and 12 of the PC Act, 2018.
4. The charge sheet filed before the Special Court would
exhaustively narrate as to what are the allegations against each accused,
including the revision petitioner/3rd accused.
5. At the time of argument, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner that, the petitioner has no role in this
occurrence and, prima facie, the prosecution materials do not justify
framing of charge and continuation of trial against him. It is pointed out
that ignoring these facts, the learned Special Judge wrongly evaluated the
prosecution materials and wrongly disallowed the discharge plea at the
instance of the petitioner. Therefore, the order impugned would deserve
interference. Inasmuch as the grounds raised by the learned counsel for
the revision petitioner, Grounds D to J are relevant and the same are
extracted hereunder:
"D. The learned Court below ought to have found that
there is absolutely no material in Annexure-I Final Report to
substantiate the allegations against the Revision
Petitioner/Accused No. 3. The learned Court below overlooked the
fact that the alleged illegal gratification received by the Revision
Petitioner/Accused No. 3 has not been recovered in any manner
known to law. The alleged contraband brought by Accused Nos.
21, 22, 25 and 26 have also not been recovered. In fact, the said
accused persons had left the airport much before the
commencement of the Joint Surprise check (JSC). The learned
Court below failed to find that mere reliance on confession
statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 would
render the charge against the Revision Petitioner/Accused No. 3
groundless, thereby entitling him for an honourable discharge.
E. The learned Court below grossly erred in
finding in Paragraph 52 of the impugned order that the statements
recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 'prima-facie
indicate the involvement of the public servants/accused in demand
and acceptance of bribe, while they were in discharge of duty at
the Calicut International Airport'. The said finding in
unsustainable in law as it is settled position of law that confession
statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962
cannot be the sole basis for arriving at conviction of an accused.
F. The confession statements relied on by the
Respondent against the Petitioner/Accused No. 3 are the
statements of co-accused i.e the statements of Accused Nos. 21, 22,
25 and 26. It is needless to state that confession of a co-accused is
weak evidence and that the guilt of an accused cannot be
established by placing reliance solely on the confession of a co-
accused. Section 24 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
categorically provides that a court of law may take into
consideration the confession of the co-accused only if such
confession stands proved. The Respondent CBI does not propose
to adduce any independent evidence to corroborate the confession
statements of co-accused.
G. The learned Court below ought to have found that the
Revision Petitioner/Accused No. 3 is similarly placed as the
Accused Nos. 19, 20, 23, 24 and 27 with respect to the probability
of conviction on the basis of the confession statements under
Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The proceedings against
Accused Nos. 19, 20, 23, 24 and 27 were quashed by this Hon'ble
Court vide Annexure- II order by holding that conviction cannot
be based solely upon confession statements under Section 108 of
the Customs Act, 1962.
H. The learned Court below grossly erred in assessing
the evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 108 of
the Customs Act, 1962. Such statements are weak evidence unless
corroborated by other independent evidences. It has been settled
by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Assistant Commissioner
Customs v Edwin Andrew Minihan (Crl.A No. 1202/2019) that
confession recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962
cannot be relied upon in isolation unless corroborated by other
elements. The Hon'ble High Court was in concurrence with the
observation of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Union of
India v Kisan Ratan Singh and Others (2020 SCC On Line Bom
39) that a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs
Act, 1962 is not gospel truth without corroboration. The Hon'ble
Apex Court has also held in Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh
(2022) SCC Online SC 705 that extra-judicial confession is not a
strong piece of evidence without corroboration.
I. The learned Court below has grossly erred in holding
in Paragraph 53 of the impugned order that the prosecution has to
be given an opportunity to prove the visuals in the CCTV. It is
pertinent to note that the Respondent CBI does not even have a
case that the CCTV visuals to prove the demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification. The place of occurrence of the alleged
incident is the customs room, which according to the Respondent
CBI is not covered by CCTV cameras. Moreover, the said finding
of the learned Court below runs contrary to the finding of this
Hon'ble Court in Annexure-II order that CCTV visuals merely
establish the presence of the accused persons at the airport. The
finding of this Hon'ble Court in Annexure-II order is as follows:
"10..........Merely relying on the CCTV footage
showing their presence at the airport and their presence
before the customs officer by itself would not prima facie
justify that they had paid illegal gratification unless the
same is specifically recovered by the manner known to
law."
J. Digital evidence in the form of CCTV footages neither
proves nor corroborates the guilt of the Revision
Petitioner/Accused No. 3. At the outset, the CCTV visuals
proposed to be adduced as evidence by the Respondent CBI do not
contain any visual of the alleged acceptance of illegal
gratification by the petitioner from the customs room. Moreover,
the Respondent CBI has admitted in Annexure-I Final Report that
there is no CCTV installed inside the customs room. Thus, the
CCTV visuals do not even prima facie suggest that the Revision
Petitioner/Accused No. 3 has committed any offence."
The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently canvassed the
above grounds to interfere with the order.
6. Whereas it is submitted by the learned Special Public
Prosecutor that it is true that, as per Annexure II order dated 18.09.2025 in
Crl.M.C.No.3362/2024, this Court quashed the proceedings against
accused Nos.19, 20, 23, 24 and 27, while declining the prayer for
quashment at the option of accused Nos.14, 15, 16 and 30. It is pointed
out further that the reasons for quashing the case as against accused
Nos.19, 20, 23, 24 and 27 have been precisely stated in paragraph 10 of
Annexure II order, the same reads as under:
"Going through the prosecution records, as against
accused Nos.19, 20, 23, 24 and 27, the essential ingredients for the
said offences could not be justified prima facie. Merely relying on the
CCTV footage showing their presence at the airport and their
presence before the customs officer by itself would not prima facie
justify that they had paid illegal gratification unless the same is
specifically recovered by the manner known to law. To put it
otherwise, accused Nos.19, 20, 23, 24 and 27, admittedly, being
travellers, would have met the customs officer as part of routine
clearance and that would appear in CCTV footage. Thus, it appears
that the prosecution as against accused Nos.19, 20, 23, 24 and 27
are unwarranted, and the same are liable to be quashed while
disallowing quashment as against accused Nos.14, 15 16 and 30,
against whom, the prosecution records would show recovery of
contraband to justify payment of illegal gratification as alleged by
the prosecution, prima facie warranting trial."
7. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned
Special Judge meticulously analysed the materials on record and after
having found that the involvement of the accused has been brought out,
prima facie, from the prosecution records, dismissed the discharge
petitions filed by Accused Nos.1 to 13, 14 to 18, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 28 to
31 by a common order. Therefore Annexure II order would not give any
benefit to the revision petitioner.
8. Having addressed the rival submissions, the specific
allegation against the revision petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.3,
is that he had received bribe of Rs.30,000/- from accused No.26 on the
basis of the demand made by accused No.7 for releasing her gold
ornaments without imposing penalty. Further he had received bribe
amount of Rs.15,000/- from accused No.22 for releasing his passport and
baggage containing dutiable goods without imposing penalty. Apart from
that, accused No.3 had received illegal gratification of Rs.15,000/- from
one Kattappani Abdul Rifay for releasing his passport and baggage
containing dutiable goods without imposing penalty and thereby
committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the above said items.
Charge Nos.50, 51, 60, 61, 68 and 69 in the final report are against the
petitioner/accused No.3 in this regard.
9. The specific case of the revision petitioner is that since the
statements recorded as that of the co-accused under Section 108 of the
Customs Act, 1962 are relied on by the prosecution to see prima facie the
allegation against the 4th accused, the same alone is insufficient to proceed
with trial after framing charge. In this connection, it is relevant to note
that, as found by the Special Court, accused No.25 stated the names of
accused Nos.2, 7, 10 and 11 also regarding payment of bribe of
Rs.30,000/- to accused No.3. Similarly, accused No.22, stated the names
of accused Nos.3, 7 and 10 also regarding the payment of bribe of
Rs.15,000/- to accused No.3. Accused No.26 given statement specifying
the names of accused Nos.2, 7, 10 and accused No.3 and also regarding
payment of bribe of Rs.30,000/- to accused No.3. It is not in dispute that
the voluntary statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act,
1962 are generally admissible in evidence, as they are taken down by a
gazetted officer (not a police officer) and are not hit by Sections 25 and 26
of the Indian Evidence Act. The statements are substantive evidence
though corroboration to be insisted upon by the courts to seek assurance
(see [AIR1996 SC 522 : MANU/SC/0127/1996 : 1996 (62) ECR
366(SC) : 1995 INSC 689 : JT 1995 (8) SC 160 : 1995 (6) SCALE 386],
Naresh J. Sukhawani Vs. Union of India (UOI) and [2023 KHC 6892],
Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. M/s.Ganpati Overseas;
and [1997 KHC 94], Pavunny v. Assistant Collector). It is relevant to
note that a contention was raised before the Special Court to the effect that
the statements were not given voluntarily and therefore the above
statements are insufficient to proceed with trial. The learned Special Judge
rightly negatived this contention finding that, this contention could be
considered only during trial. Thus accused Nos.22, 25, 26 and Kattappani
Abdul Rifay are the persons given statements supporting receipt of bribe
by the revision petitioner/accused No.3. In this connection, it is relevant to
note that pardon was granted to accused Nos.22 to 25, 28, 29, 30 and 37
during investigation stage under Section 306 of Cr.P.C as per the order of
the C.J.M, Ernakulam dated 28.11.2022. Thus now the status of accused
Nos.22 and 25, who had given statements against the petitioner is that of
approvers and approvers' evidence attaches probative value and the
probative value of the said evidence is a matter to be decided during trial.
Thus in the instant case there are sufficient materials to proceed with trial
of the revision petitioner/3rd accused, prima facie. It is well settled law
that at the time of discharge, the court cannot go for a rowing enquiry by
meticulously analysing the prosecution records within the sphere of a mini
trial to record its finding. The power of the court while considering
discharge plea shall be with a view to find whether, prima facie, the
offence/offences alleged is/are made out to go for trial or at least a strong
suspicion to proceed with trial. While doing such endeavour, when the
court, prima facie, finds that the offence/offences is/are made out to go for
trial or a strong suspicion which would warrant trial, discharge plea must
fail. In the instant case, accused Nos.22 and 25, who are now approvers
along with one Kattappani Abdul Rifay, given statements regarding
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the revision petitioner.
Thus, in the instant case, prima facie, there are materials to proceed with
trial of the revision petitioner/accused No.3. No doubt, the evidentiary
value of approvers and how far the same to be believed and acted upon,
and similarly how far the extra judicial confession and how far the
statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, are
matters to be decided after trial. Similar is the position inasmuch as the
evidence available through CC TV cameras.
10. Insofar as quashment of the case against accused Nos.19, 20,
23 and 27 as per Annexure II is concerned, the same was based on finding
that there are no materials against them, prima facie, or a strong suspicion.
It is pertinent to note that, as per the same order (Annexure II), quashment
plea as against accused Nos.14, 15, 16 and 30 was dismissed by this Court
finding that, prima facie, the allegations are made out. Thus it appears that
the discharge plea raised by the revision petitioner herein contending that
there are no materials to connect him is found to be absolutely
unsustainable and, therefore, the learned Special Judge rightly dismissed
the discharge petition, holding so. In such view of the matter, no
interference with the order is warranted.
11. Therefore, the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed
and is accordingly dismissed.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the
jurisdictional court concerned, for information and further steps
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
rtr/
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET NO.162 OF 2026
REVISION PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure I THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY
THE RESPONDENT CBI IN C.C NO.1/2023 BEFORE
THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, (SPE/CBI)-III, ERNAKULAM.
Annexure II THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2025
IN CRL.M.C NO.3362/2024 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
Annexure -III THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF DISCHARGE
APPLICATION IN CRL.M.P NO.613/2025 FILED BY
THE REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3.
