Discharge from criminal charges requires more than mere suspicion; a prima facie case must be established through credible evidence linking the accused to the alleged offenses.

ORDER :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

Dated this the 11th day of December, 2025 This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the CBI challenging the order in Crl.M.P.No.48/2021 in C.C.No.23/2016 on the files of the Special Judge, (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam, whereby the 18^th accused, who is the respondent in this petition, has been discharged by the learned Special Judge on finding that no prima facie materials are available to proceed against him by framing charge.

2. Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused No.18.

3. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act, 1988’ hereinafter) and also under Section 24 of the EMIGRATION ACT , 1983, by the accused. The prosecution case is that the 1^st accused, a public servant employed in the Kerala Police as a Civil Police Officer, had worked in the Emigration Wing of the Cochin International Airport from 03.06.2003 to 15.06.2003 and from 13.12.2007 to 05.07.2011. The 2^nd accused is the father of the 1^st accused, who was operating a Savings Bank Account at the Federal Bank, Kottapadi Branch, and it is alleged that a part of the bribe money was transferred to this account. Accused Nos.3, 4, 6 to 16 and 20 are individuals and proprietors of travel agencies having offices in different parts of Kerala and are mainly engaged in the business of processing travel documents of emigrant workers proceeding to Middle East countries. The 5^th accused is a private company having different concerns in Middle East countries and is engaged in recruiting unskilled workers from India for its projects. Accused Nos.17 to 19 and 21 are Sub-Inspectors of the Kerala Police who worked at CIAL, Nedumbassery, as Emigration Officers during different periods.

4. The contentions raised by the respondent/accused No.18 before the Special Court was that there were no materials against him warranting trial and the prosecution records did not disclose any prima facie materials to proceed against him. The learned Special Judge accepted these contentions and discharged the respondent/accused No.18.

5. While challenging the order of discharge, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI emphasised the statements of witnesses Nos.11, 12, and 13 to substantiate that there were ample materials prima facie to show the involvement of the respondent/accused No.18. According to him, the respondent/accused No.18 was posted as the Emigration Officer at the departure spot of the Airport with the responsibility of checking the passenger’s passport by using the swiping machine to compare the photograph in the passport with that of the passenger, and to verify the genuineness of the passport through the Passport Registration and Identification System (PRIDE), Passport Information Service on Net (PISON), or the Ultra Violet Lamp. His duties also included checking the date of issue and expiry of the passport, detecting photo substitution or page alterations, verifying the genuineness of the visa, checking for lookout circulars (LOC), and ensuring that passengers holding ECR passports possessed emigration clearance issued by the Protector of Emigrants when travelling on an employment visa. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, CW12, who originally held the passport in his name, had stated that his passport was lost and that thereafter, after removing the head portion of his photograph, the head portion of the photograph of CW11 was affixed in the passport. The manipulated passport was then produced along with the travel d