Discharge in corruption cases requires evaluating whether allegations present sufficient grounds for trial, relying on circumstantial evidence when direct proof is unavailable.

ORDER :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

Accused No.8 in C.C.No.23/2016 on the files of Special Judge, CBI, Ernakulam, has filed this Criminal Revision Petition challenging order in CMP.No.59/2025 dated 07.04.2025 (marked as Annexure-A1) under Sections 438 r/w 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (' BNSS ’ for short), whereby the plea of discharge raised by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused No.8 and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Standing Counsel) for the Central Bureau of Investigation (`CBI’ for short) in detail. Perused the records and the order impugned.

3. In this matter, prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 11 , 12, 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (a) and 13(1)(d) and Section 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act’ for short) as well as under Section 24 of the IMMIGRATION ACT .

4. In a nut shell, the allegation in the common charge shown as charge No.1 in the charge sheet is that Accused No 1, employed in Kerala Police as Civil Police Officer, was working at Cochin International Airport immigration wing from 3.6.2003 to 15.12.2003 and 13.12.2007 to 5.7.2011, sometime during 2005 entered into criminal conspiracy with accused Nos A3 to A16 and A20 who are travel agents engaged in the business of servicing of travel documents and other senior officers functioning as counter officers in the immigration wing such as A17, A18, A19 and A21 to illegally clear passengers proceeding abroad without valid travel documents by abusing their official position as public servants employed as Immigration counter Officers and obtained pecuniary advantage for themselves. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, A3 to A17 and A20 forwarded their passengers without valid travel documents to A1, AP Ajeeb and he with the undue influence exerted on senior officers on counter duty abusing their official position cleared the passengers to travel abroad without valid travel documents. In furtherance of the conspiracy A3 to A17 and A20 collected bribes from the passengers or arranged their own funds and the same were deposited to SB account of A2 who is the father of Al and the same was withdrawn and distributed to the officers concerned who cleared the passengers. As per the-common charge, the petitioner was alleged to have remitted an amount of Rs. 1,45,000- during the period from 18.7.06 to 7.5.2011 to the account of A2.

5. Challenging Annexure-A1 order, the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed the grounds urged in this Criminal Revision Petition to contend that the prosecution materials in no way would show that the petitioner has been running a travel agency and in that capacity he transferred money in the account of the 2^nd accused. The Grounds C to H urged to assail Annexure-A1 order are relevant. The same read as under:

“C. The trial Court failed to appreciate that there was no evidence even to raise suspicion of the allegation of conspiracy. Trial court also failed to appreciate the dictum laid down in the decision reported in AIR 1972 SC 2598 that to attract the offence of 120 B IPC there should be a specific allegation of mens rea and actus reus. Criminal conspiracy has to be proved like any other offence. 2009(2) KLD 513(SC). In the instant charge sheet, the prosecution recorded the statement of 151 witnesses. In none of these statements there is even a whisper about conspiracy or meeting of minds.

D. Trial court did not appreciate the fact that travel agents who facilitated travel of ineligible passengers to abroad function from different places like Trivandrum, Ernakulam, Pathanam