Point of Law: At the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on their face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. At the stage of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application, a mini trial is not permissible.

ORDER :

Whether exoneration of a public servant in the departmental proceeding would ipso facto constitute sufficient ground for exonerating him of the charges based on same facts in the criminal proceeding? This is the core question that arises for consideration in this case.

2. The petitioner is the fifth accused in the case C.C.No.47/2014 pending in the Court of the Additional Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam.

3. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) received information that the customs officials posted at the Cochin International Airport were regularly and systematically obtaining and collecting money as illegal gratification from the passengers who arrive from the foreign countries for the purpose of granting customs clearance to them and that the amount so collected was being shared among the customs officers. The CBI requested the Managing Director of the Cochin International Airport to record the activities at the international arrival area of the Airport for a period of ten days. On 17.10.2006, the CBI received ten compact discs which contained the recording made during eight days from 10.10.2006 to 17.10.2006. The visuals contained in the compact discs, prima facie, showed customs officials demanding and accepting bribe from the passengers. The CBI registered a case on 18.10.2006 against identifiable customs officials. On that day, at around 19:30 hours, the CBI conducted search at the international arrival area of the Airport. During the search, foreign currency notes of different countries were recovered from many customs officials, including the petitioner who was working as Superintendent of Customs. Foreign currency was also recovered from the suitcases of certain customs officials.

4. After completing the investigation of the case, the CBI filed charge-sheet against 25 customs officials for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The Special Court took cognizance of the offences.

5. As already noticed, the petitioner was the Superintendent of Customs on duty in the airport. The allegation against him in the charge-sheet filed by the CBI is that, he had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other customs officials, who were on duty in the airport, to obtain illegal gratification from the passengers who arrive from abroad, for giving customs clearance to the passengers and that he had also obtained the share of the money collected as bribe pursuant to such conspiracy and thereby, he has committed the offence punishable under Section 120B of the I.P.C read with Sections 7 and 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act.

6. The petitioner filed an application for discharge in the trial court under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'). The trial court considered that application alongwith the application filed by another accused for the same relief. As per the order dated 27.02.2018, the trial court dismissed both applications.

7. The aforesaid order is under challenge in this application filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code.

8. Heard learned senior counsel who appeared for the petitioner and also the learned Central Government Standing Counsel who appeared for the CBI.

9. Learned senior counsel has submitted that departmental enquiry in the matter was conducted against the petitioner and he was exonerated of the charge framed against him in that enquiry. Learned senior counsel would contend that, once a person is exonerated of the charges in the departmental enquiry, criminal proceedings against him on the same facts shall not be continued.

10. Per contra, learned Central Government Standing Counsel would submit that exoneration of a person in departmental enquiry would not ipso facto lead to exoneration of him in the criminal proceedings. He would submit that, result of the criminal proceedings