Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed that allegations of bribery against a Minister cannot rest solely on oral assertions and must be subjected to careful judicial scrutiny. The observation came while dismissing three connected criminal revision petitions filed by the State of Kerala challenging the discharge of a former Minister, his then private secretary, and other officials accused in a vigilance case concerning alleged irregularities in the allotment of a wholesale ration depot licence. Upholding the Special Court’s decision, the Bench found that the prosecution had failed to present sufficient material to support the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code, and therefore confirmed the discharge of all accused.

The case arose from two vigilance crimes registered following a complaint alleging irregularities in the allotment of a wholesale ration depot licence at Omassery. After investigation, two separate charge sheets were filed: the “A charge” naming the former Minister for Food and Civil Supplies and his private secretary under Sections 7, 12, and 15 read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code; and the “B charge” naming other officials, including a Taluk Supply Officer and others, under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and Sections 468, 471, and 120B IPC.

Also Read: Supreme Court Issues Notice on Pleas by Three Acquitted Death Row Prisoners Seeking Compensation for Wrongful Conviction; Seeks Assistance of Attorney General and Solicitor General

The allegations centred on an alleged conspiracy to issue the licence to one applicant instead of another without following prescribed procedure and a purported demand of ₹30 lakh later reduced to ₹25 lakh. After initial proceedings, the investigating officer sought permission for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., which was allowed. Additional statements were recorded, including those under Section 164 Cr.P.C.'

The accused sought discharge before the Special Court, contending absence of evidence and procedural irregularity. The prosecution argued that the trial court wrongly assessed contradictions in witness statements, amounting to a “mini-trial.” The Special Court discharged the accused, finding no sufficient material for framing charges. The State of Kerala filed three criminal revision petitions challenging these discharge orders, asserting that the Special Judge had exceeded jurisdiction and failed to consider the prima facie case for offences under the PC Act.

The Court observed that when an allegation of demand of bribe by a Minister is raised, merely on the basis of oral statements, the same would require thorough scrutiny as false implication of persons holding higher posts, including Ministers, cannot be ruled out due to animosity arising out of failure in getting the demand or need of the complainant.

The judgment recorded that the District Collector was the authority who issued the licence in favour of another applicant and denied the same to the complainant for valid administrative reasons, which weakened the prosecution’s assertion of any corrupt act by the accused officials.

The Court stated that mere oral statements without any cogent material to support the allegation of demand of bribe are insufficient to sustain prosecution, adding that false implication of public servants on such statements could not be excluded without substantive proof.

Referring to settled principles, the Court observed that a “mini trial” at the charge stage is impermissible, but courts are entitled to evaluate whether the prosecution records disclose a prima facie offence or whether the allegations have any factual foundation to proceed to trial.

The Bench recorded that once it is found from the prosecution records that the licence was denied for valid reasons by the competent authority, the allegation of demand of bribe by the Minister, without any allegation against the District Collector, would posit false implication of the accused persons.

The Court stated that the complainant had not raised any grievance at the time of licence rejection, and the delay in alleging demand indicated lack of bona fides. It further observed that when the substratum of the case—non-grant of licence—was based on administrative decision, the prosecution’s case could not establish the ingredients required under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Also Read: S.68F NDPS Act | Kerala HC Quashes Scooter Confiscation Under NDPS Act; Seizure Needs Inquiry-Based ‘Reason to Believe’ Backed by Credible Material

Ultimately, the Court found that none of the offences could be made out from the prosecution materials and that even a strong suspicion was absent.

The Court directed that the connected criminal revision petitions be dismissed. It stated: “On appraisal of the order passed by the learned Special Judge, in the context of events discussed, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned and as such, the orders are confirmed. In the result, these revision petitions fail and are dismissed.”

“Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Special Court forthwith.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri. Rajesh A., Special Public Prosecutor, VACB; Smt. Rekha S., Senior Public Prosecutor, VACB
For the Respondents: Shri. M. Ajay; Shri. Sharan Shahier; Shri. V. P. Prasad; Shri. A. Muhammed Musthafa; Shri. Abhilash A. J.; Shri. Suhail Ali A.

Case Title: State of Kerala v. Sameer Navas and Connected Cases
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:82391
Case Number: Crl. Rev. Pet. Nos. 173, 316 & 358 of 2023
Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen