The court emphasized the necessity for prima facie evidence to proceed with a trial, underscoring that discharge petitions cannot be granted based solely on the weakness of co-accused confessions.

ORDER :

1. Accused No.3 in CC No.1/2023 on the files of the Additional Special Sessions Court (SPE/CBI Cases)-III, Ernakulam (`Special Court’ hereinafter for short), has filed this Revision Petition under Section 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (`BNSS’ for short hereinafter), challenging the order dated 31.12.2025 in C.M.P. No.613/2025 in the above case, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the discharge petition filed by the revision petitioner/ accused No.3.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation. Perused the records.

3. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B r/w 409 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short hereinafter) as well as under Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as amended 2018 (`PC Act 2018’ for short hereinafter). The revision petitioner herein is the 3^rd accused in the above case. The prosecution case is that accused Nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 7 and 9 to 13, as public servants had received illegal gratification from the passengers for releasing their dutiable goods, without imposing customs duty and penalty as on 11/01/2021 and 12/01/2021. Accused No.4 alleged to have conspired with other customs officials in the array of accused to withhold contraband articles illegally, without confiscating or making entry of the same in the Books of Accounts and thereby they alleged to have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust punishable u/s. 409 of IPC. As far as the 8^th accused is concerned, the allegation by the prosecution is that he directed the passengers to collect the passports from the customs officials in the customs room and other places, facilitating the other delinquent customs officials to collect illegal gratification from the passengers and thereafter to release their goods and passport without confiscating it or imposing customs duty. As far as accused Nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 7 and 9 to 13 are concerned, the specific allegation of the prosecution is that, they have collected bribe from the passengers, committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the seized articles and also permitted the passengers to get release of their goods without imposing customs duty or penalty. Thus accused Nos. 1 to 30 alleged to have committed the offence punishable u/ss.120 B r/w. 409 IPC and sec. 7, 8 and 12 of the PC Act, 2018, i.e the public servants alleged to have committed the offence punishable u/s. 120 B r/w. 409 IPC and sec. 7 of the PC Act, 1988 and the remaining accused/passengers alleged to have committed the offences punishable u/s. 8 and 12 of the PC Act, 2018.

4. The charge sheet filed before the Special Court would exhaustively narrate as to what are the allegations against each accused, including the revision petitioner/3^rd accused.

5. At the time of argument, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that, the petitioner has no role in this occurrence and, prima facie, the prosecution materials do not justify framing of charge and continuation of trial against him. It is pointed out that ignoring these facts, the learned Special Judge wrongly evaluated the prosecution materials and wrongly disallowed the discharge plea at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, the order impugned would deserve interference. Inasmuch as the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Grounds D to J are relevant and the same are extracted hereunder:

“D. The learned Court below ought to have found that there is absolutely no material in A