At the plea for discharge stage, the court evaluates if there is prima facie evidence supporting the allegations, without delving into evidentiary merits, allowing for the continuation of proceedings.

ORDER :

A. Badharudeen, J.

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.

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 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, theywere 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. Emperor , 2016 (4) KLT 613 Sukumaran v. Sub Inspector of Po