MINIversusCBI/SPE COCHIN

          [2025] 8 S.C.R. 799 : 2025 INSC 980

                              Mini
                               v.
                       CBI / SPE Cochin
              (Criminal Appeal No. 3514 of 2025)
                         13 August 2025
          [Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
This appeal is by widow of the deceased convict against the
judgment and order of the High Court whereby conviction of her
husband, u/ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, has been upheld.

                            Headnotes†
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) –
Accused was functioning as a lower division clerk in the
Passport Office – Allegation against the accused that he required
complainant to pay Rs.200 as gratification amount over and
above the lawful amount of Rs.1000 – The Trial Court convicted
the accused upon finding that lodging of complaint and delivery
of tainted money was duly proved by the prosecution – The
conviction of the accused was upheld by the High Court –
Whether a benefit of doubt can be given to the accused:
Held: 1. In the instant case, the complainant-PW-1 has not
supported demand and insofar as receipt of extra Rs.200 is
concerned, there was no reliable evidence – Therefore, in view
of this Court, this was a fit case where benefit of doubt had to be
given to the accused. [Para 12]
2. In the case on hand, in paragraph 20 of the impugned judgment,
the High Court has noticed the statement of PW-1 wherein he
stated that he was misled by one person, who was employed in
the CBI, that the accused was a corrupt person and even though
several attempts were made by the CBI to trap him, they were
not successful – That person sought assistance of PW1 to trap
the officer – In view of this Court, when this was the statement
of PW1 courts were required to be circumspect in evaluating the
evidence – In such circumstances, when the complainant had not
supported the prosecution case during trial regarding demand of
bribe money, the trial court and the appellate court were required
800                                                           [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       to meticulously consider, particularly in the context of defense
       taken by the accused in his statement u/s.313 CRPC, whether the
       accused at the time of accepting the money was aware that it was
       in excess of the lawful fee payable for the passport – No other
       evidence was brought by the prosecution against the accused – It
       is the defense of the accused that he was not aware that there
       were two Rs.100 notes extra than what were to be deposited for
       the purposes of applying for a passport – In such circumstances,
       it was obligatory upon the Court to consider the defense of the
       accused seriously. [Para 11]

                                  List of Acts
       Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

                               List of Keywords
       Corruption; Gratification amount; No reliable evidence; Complainant
       not supporting prosecution case; Consideration of defense of
       accused.

                              Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       3514 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 14.01.2020 of the High Court
       of Kerala at Ernakulam in CRLA No. 1164 of 2010

                           Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       Adolf Mathew, Sanjay Jain.
       Advs. for the Respondent:
       Mrs. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Mrs. Vimla
       Sinha, Gautam Bharadwaj, Ishaan Sharma, Nikhil Chandra Jaiswal,
       Manasi Sridhar, Arvind Kumar Sharma.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                     Order
1.     Leave granted.
2.     Heard learned counsel for the parties.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                       801

                         Mini v. CBI/SPE Cochin


3.   This appeal is by widow of the deceased convict (Mohanachandran
     N.K.) against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala dated
     14.01.2020 in Criminal Appeal No.1164/2010 whereby conviction
     of her husband (hereinafter referred to as the accused), under
     Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
     Act, 1988, has been upheld.
4.   The prosecution case in a nutshell is that the accused was functioning
     as a lower division clerk in the Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram.
     The original complainant (PW1) required a passport urgently. In that
     context, he contacted the accused. The accused required him to bring
     Rs.1,000/- towards passport fee and other necessary documents.
     Over and above the lawful amount of Rs.1000, accused demanded
     Rs.500 for processing the application expeditiously. On PW1’s
     expression of his inability to pay gratification amount of Rs.500, the
     accused told PW1 that initially he may pay Rs.200/- and the balance
     may be paid after getting the passport. As per instructions, the
     amount of Rs.1200 (i.e., Rs.1000 towards Passport fee plus Rs.200
     towards gratification) along with application form and documents
     were to be delivered at the residence of the accused on 16.06.2003.
     In the meantime, the complainant made a complaint to the Central
     Bureau of Investigation (for short “the CBI”) which, after registering
     the complaint, laid a trap. In furtherance thereof, on 16.06.2003, at
     the residence of the accused, treated currency notes amounting to
     Rs.1200 were handed over to the accused and soon thereafter, he
     was apprehended, and his hand wash was collected.
5.   During trial, PW1 (the original complainant) did not support the
     prosecution case as regards the demand of bribe. The Trial Court,
     however, convicted the accused upon finding that lodging of complaint
     and delivery of tainted money was duly proved by the prosecution.
     Aggrieved by his conviction, the accused filed an appeal which was
     dismissed by the impugned order.
6.   The submission on behalf of the appellant is that the Courts below
     have not properly appreciated the evidence as well as the defense
     of the accused set up in his statement made under Section 313 of
     the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the CRPC’). It is
     submitted that under Section 313 the accused had explained the
     incriminating circumstances by stating that PW1 had approached
     him through an advocate for help in obtaining the passport. In that
802                                                         [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       context, the accused had decided to help him and on 16.06.2003
       the complainant came to the house of the accused along with the
       prescribed fee of Rs.1000 and documents necessary for issuance of a
       passport. This was received and kept by the accused under the belief
       that it was prescribed fee amount only. At that time, accused was not
       aware that between two Rs.500 denomination currency notes there
       were two Rs.100 denomination currency notes. Thus, the defense
       taken by the accused was that the accused was unaware that the
       amount being given to him was more than the amount required to
       be deposited towards passport fee.
7.     Additionally, it has been argued that once the demand is not proved,
       and Rs.1000 were in any case to be paid towards passport fee, the
       recovery of that amount by itself would not be incriminatory. In such
       circumstances, it was a fit case where the accused ought to have
       been acquitted and, in any event, given the benefit of doubt.
8.     Per contra, on behalf of the CBI it has been argued that even if
       the complainant does not support the prosecution case, or turn
       hostile, during trial, if it is proved that the complainant had lodged
       a complaint complaining demand of bribe from him by the accused
       and, thereafter, money is received by the accused, conviction can be
       sustained by relying on circumstances that establish demand. It has
       been argued on behalf of the CBI that PW2, who is an independent
       witness, has proved that there was recovery of the tainted money
       from the accused. PW3 also corroborates the aforesaid fact, and
       both PW2 & PW3 have proved that the complaint was lodged by
       PW1. Therefore, even if PW1 turned hostile, insofar as demand is
       concerned, the demand stood proved. It is, therefore, submitted on
       behalf of the respondent(s) that as there are concurrent findings
       holding the accused guilty, the appeal of the appellant ought to be
       dismissed.
9.     We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
       parties and have perused the record carefully.
10. At the outset, we may observe that there can be no quarrel with
    the proposition that demand can be proved by circumstances even
    if the original complainant does not in so many words supports the
    prosecution case during trial.
11. However, in the case on hand, in paragraph 20 of the impugned
    judgment, the High Court has noticed the statement of PW-1 wherein
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                        803

                         Mini v. CBI/SPE Cochin


     he stated that he was misled by one person, who was employed in
     the CBI, that the accused was a corrupt person and even though
     several attempts were made by the CBI to trap him, they were not
     successful. That person sought assistance of PW1 to trap the officer.
     In our view, when this was the statement of PW1 courts were required
     to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. In that context, when
     we meticulously look at the evidence, we find that it is not in dispute
     that the prosecution case itself was that the amount provided to
     the accused included lawful charges payable towards passport fee.
     The lawful charges were Rs.1000 and the bribe money Rs.200. In
     such circumstances, when the complainant had not supported the
     prosecution case during trial regarding demand of bribe money,
     the trial court and the appellate court were required to meticulously
     consider, particularly in the context of defense taken by the accused
     in his statement under Section 313 CRPC, whether the accused at
     the time of accepting the money was aware that it was in excess
     of the lawful fee payable for the passport. Importantly, other than
     PW1, who was not wholly reliable, prosecution brought no evidence
     that when the money was accepted by the accused, he had counted
     the money or that the money was counted in front of the accused
     before handing it over to him. Notably, the defense of the accused
     is that there were two Rs.500 denomination currency notes and
     in between those two notes, two Rs.100 denomination currency
     notes were placed. It is his case that he was not aware that there
     were two Rs.100 notes extra than what were to be deposited for
     the purposes of applying for a passport. In such circumstances, in
     our view, it was obligatory upon the Court to consider the defense
     of the accused seriously.
12. It is well settled that statement of the accused explaining the
    incriminating circumstances is to be considered before recording
    conviction and where the explanation is plausible and appropriately
    explains the incriminating circumstances, it may be accepted. In the
    present case, we find that the complainant himself had approached
    the accused for seeking his help for a passport. Admittedly, out of
    Rs.1200 paid, Rs.1000 were towards passport fee and, therefore,
    was not bribe money. Demand for the bribe is not supported during
    trial. In such circumstances, the defense of the accused that he
    agreed to help the complainant because he was introduced by an
    advocate, and that he was not aware that Rs.200 has been added
    to Rs.1000, which was the lawful amount payable towards passport
804                                                        [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       fee, ought not to have been brushed aside. More so, because if the
       complainant had offered to the accused only the lawful fee payable
       for processing the passport, no offence was committed. To make out
       an offence there had to be cogent proof of demand. In the instant
       case, the complainant has not supported demand and insofar as
       receipt of extra Rs.200 is concerned, there was no reliable evidence.
       Further, there was defense of the accused that he was not aware
       about those extra Rs.200. Therefore, in our view, this was a fit case
       where benefit of doubt had to be given to the accused.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The judgment
    and order(s) of the High Court and the trial court are set aside. The
    accused who is no more alive, shall be treated as acquitted of all
    the charges for which he has been tried.
14. Pending application(s), if any shall stand disposed of.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan