Insufficient evidence to establish complicity in alleged offences led to the quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

ORDER :

(P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.)

The 3^rd accused in C.C No.1 of 2020 pending before the Special Court (SPE/CBI), Thiruvananthapuram is the petitioner. Annexure A1 is the final report, based on which C.C.No.1 of 2020 was instituted. The petitioner filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Code) seeking to quash Annexure A1 and further proceedings thereon.

2. The petitioner was the Superintendent of Customs, in charge of hand baggage x-ray scanning machine at the International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram, the 1^st accused was a Havildar and the 4^th accused, who turned approver, was a Superintendent, Customs, Air Intelligence unit. The 2^nd accused Sabeer Abdul Karim was an international passenger. The allegation of the prosecution is that on 10.03.2018 the 2^nd accused who came from Dubai at the International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram had with him 980.100 grams of gold worth Rs.30.28 lakhs enclosed in a wallet. The 1^st accused who was on duty clandestinely collected the said wallet from the 2^nd accused and furtively came out avoiding the x-ray machine. The 2^nd accused was therefore able to pass through the x-ray scanner and get customs clearance. The wallet containing gold was later recovered from the 1^st accused by the 4^th accused.

3. The further allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner and the 4^th accused hatched a conspiracy for saving the 1^st accused and resultantly a mahazar and seizure memo were prepared stating that the recovery of gold was effected from the possession of the 2^nd accused himself. The petitioner in pursuance of that conspiracy prepared a false letter dated 10.03.2018 showing that the gold was recovered from the possession of the 2^nd accused, for depositing the contraband in the customs warehouse. While accused Nos.1,2 and 4 thus allegedly committed offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(PC Act), the petitioner along with other accused allegedly had committed offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 167, 193 and 201 of the IPC. The petitioner contends that the allegations in Annexure A1 final report, even accepting on its face value, would not make out the offences alleged against her and therefore Annexure A1 is liable to be quashed.

4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appeared on instructions for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the CBI.

5. Going by the case of the prosecution, the gold in question was seized by the approver (4^th accused) from the possession of the 1^st accused whereas, documents such as seizure mahazar and seizure memo which are Annexure A5 and A6 were prepared as if the gold was seized from the possession of the 2^nd accused. The 1^st accused was a head Havildar on duty and she collected the wallet containing gold from the 2^nd accused with a view to avoid detection in x-ray examination and thereby to save customs duty. She did so to help the 2^nd accused misusing her official position and for obtaining pecuniary advantage. The 1^st accused took the wallet along the backside of x-ray scanner, where the petitioner was on duty. Such a furtive attempt of the 1^st accused was noticed by the approver and she was intercepted. The wallet contained gold and that resulted in the seizure. Annexure A5 was however, prepared in such a manner that the gold was seized from the possession of the 2^nd accused. The allegation is that the petitioner/3^rd accused and the approver connived to prepare Annexures A5 and A6, and the petitioner prepared Annexure A13 letter for depositing the contraband gold with the customs warehouse in tune with the seizure mahazar and memo. That amounted to preparing incorrect documents, creation of false evidence and screening of evidence. The object behind it was to save the 1^st accused from criminal prosecution.

6. The evidence proposed by the prosecution to establish the allegations again