Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2935
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
M. Gunasekharan S/o E. Mannangatty – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation, Kochi – Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 324 of 2022, Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos. 2, 5 of 2024
Decided On : 05-11-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Corruption and Bribery
Act Referred
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT : S.12, S.13(1)(a), S.13(2), S.14
Headnote
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 397 and 401 - Jurisdiction of revision - Wider powers to review lower court's decisions, particularly when accusations are unproven or lack substantial evidence to justify the charge. (Paras 24, 28, 30)
Facts of the case:
The 4th accused challenged the Special Judge's order on charges under the P.C. Act, specific allegations concerning illegal gratification were made without adequate substantiation of habitual crimes. Prosecution failed to provide comprehensive evidence linking the accused's actions directly to crimes alleged in charges against them.
Findings of Court:
The common order stands dismissed for lack of substantiated claims against the 4th accused under the relevant sections, while allowing part of the challenge against the discharge of the 2nd accused due to sufficient suspicion existing for trial on Section 12.
Issues: The main issues revolved around whether prior convictions were necessary to establish habitual offender status and whether the evidence presented substantiated the bribery allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that for habitual offender charges claims by the prosecution must be firmly supported by substantial evidence of prior offenses; mere charges without evidence do not warrant prosecution action.
Result: The order of the Special Judge discharging the 4th accused for the offences is confirmed, while part of the discharge concerning the 2nd accused’s charge under Section 12 has been set aside for trial.
For the Appellants : T.N. Suresh, Dhanuja Vettathu, Korah Joy, Monsy K.V.
For the Respondent: Sreelal N. Warrier
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges to discharge orders based on insufficient evidence of habitual offenses. (Para 1 , 6 , 10) |
| 2. common order investigated regarding multiple revision petitions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. determination of basis for habitual offender allegations requiring substantial prior evidence. (Para 12 , 21 , 22 , 30) |
ORDER :
1. Crl.Rev.Pet. No.324/2022 has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short] by the 4th accused in C.C. No.7/2014 on the files of the Court of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam, challenging the common order dated 08.04.2022 in Crl.M.P. No.5/2021 along with Crl.M.P. Nos.212/2020 and 213/2020 in the above case, whereby the discharge plea at the instance of the 4th accused, who alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act, 1988’, for short] was dismissed by the learned Special Judge.
2. Crl.Rev.Pet. No.5/2024 has been filed by the Central Bureau of Investigating (CBI) challenging the same common order, whereby the 4th accused (the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P. No.324/2022) was discharged for the offence punishable under Section 14 of the P.C. Act, 1988.
3. Crl.Rev.Pet. No.2/2024 is also at the instance of the CBI, challenging the same common order in Crl.M.P. No.212/2020 in the above case, whereby the 2nd accused was discharged for the offences punishable under Sections 14 and 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988.
4. Heard Sri.T.N.Suresh, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in Crl.Rev.Pet. No.324/2022 as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor, in detail. Also heard Sri.Prakash P. George, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2/2024. Perused the common order impugned and relevant records available.
5. Parties in these criminal revision petitions shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter.
6. In this matter, the prosecution allegation against the 2nd accused is that, the 2nd accused habitually abetted the 1st accused in committing offences under sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the P.C. Act, 1988, while the 1st accused was employed in FACT as Chief Sales Manager, Chief Distribution Manager, Dy.General Manager (Fertiliser), DGM (Finance), GM(Finance) Co-ord. and G.M. (Corporate Finance) Co-ord. at Udyogamandal, by habitually paying him bribes for a total amount of Rs.50,000/- in 6 installments at the rate of Rs.5000/- each on 24.10.2005 and 24.02.2006, Rs.10,000/- each on 24.02.2009, 21.09.2009, 07.09.2010 and 09.09.2011 through the SB account No.30012379332 of the 1st accused held at SBI, Palarivattom branch. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 14 read with 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988, by the 2nd accused.
7. Similarly, the 4th accused alleged to have habitually abetted the 1st accused committing o under sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the PC Act, 1988, while the 1st accused was employed in FACT as DGM (Finance), GM (Finance) Co-ord. And GM(Corporate Finance) Co-ord. at Udyogamandal, by habitually paying him bribes for a total amount of Rs.1,01,000/- in 8 installments at the rate of Rs.5000/- each on 05.11.2007 and 23.01.2008, Rs.10,000/- on 30.11.2007, Rs.6000/- on 10.09.2008, Rs.17,000/- on 15.10.2008, Rs.15,000/- on 21.01.2009, Rs.20,000/- on 21.12.2009 and Rs.23,000/- on 26.09.2010 through the SB account No. 30012379332 of the 1st accused held at SBI, Palarivattom branch. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable Section 14 read with 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988, by the 4th accused.
8. According to the learned counsel for the 4th accused, even though the allegation against the 4th accused is confined to payment of Rs.1,01,000/- in eight installments, the prosecution did not produce any documents to substantiate the same in full. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 4th accused that,
