Allegation Of Bribe Demand Against Minister Merely Based On Oral Statements Requires Thorough Scrutiny: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court noted that those public servants who do not take a bribe directly, but through middlemen or touts, and those who accept valuable things from a person with whom they have or are likely to have official dealings, are also punishable.
Justice A. Badharudeen, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court held that when an allegation demanding bribe by a Minister is raised merely based on oral statements, the same would require thorough scrutiny.
The Court was deciding Criminal Revision Petitions preferred by the State against the Order of the Special Judge by which the accused persons were discharged.
A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “When allegation demanding 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, merely by oral statements could not be ruled out due to animosity arose out of failure in getting the demand or need of the complainant. To put it otherwise, anybody who is having grudge against the Minister or a higher official can simply asserts that he had demanded bribe on a particular day for doing something. Then the substance of the allegation to be evaluated based on the circumstances which stemmed into the allegation of demand of illegal gratification.”
The Bench added that when the allegation of demand of illegal gratification is raised by a person merely relying on his oral statement alone without any other cogent materials to see the bonafides of the allegation of demand after getting failed to achieve their goal, the oral allegation is to be adjudged as an afterthought to wreck vengeance against the officer, unless any other cogent materials brought out in support of the allegations.
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Rajesh A. appeared for the Revision Petitioner, while Advocates A. Muhammed Musthafa, M. Ajay, and Sharan Shahier appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
Charges were framed against the Respondents-accused persons under Sections 7, 12, and 15 read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Special Judge took cognizance of the offences. It was alleged by the Complainant that when he applied for the Wholesale Depot licence, the accused demanded Rs. 30 lakhs for allotting the same. The Special Judge discharged the accused and hence, the State was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above regard, said, “On a plain reading of Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988, an attempt to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration is sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988. The Apex Court also expressed the same view in Devinder Kumar Bansal (supra) after discussing the essentials. Thus, it was held that actual exchange of bribe is not an essential requirement to prosecute an accused under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988.”
The Court noted that those public servants who do not take a bribe directly, but through middlemen or touts, and those who accept valuable things from a person with whom they have or are likely to have official dealings, are also punishable under Sections 10 and 11 of the PC Act.
“Here, the statement of CW1 is that, Sri.Adoor Prakash ₹ demanded 30 lakh from him and later, reduced the same to ₹ 25 lakh for issuing the licence. CW2 also given statement in this regard. However, the question is whether this allegation is justifiable from the facts of the case divulged. As already pointed out, the District Collector was the person who passed order in favour of Sri.Sameer Navas and denied the same to CW1”, it added.
The Court was of the view that adjudication of the corruption allegations is permissible to avoid abuse of the process of the Court and to avoid false implication of higher officials and such an exercise is not a mini trial, but only evaluation of prosecution materials and the attending circumstances based on the prosecution records to satisfy prime facie, whether the allegations have the legs to stand on
“Here, non-grant of licence to CW1 is the substratum where from the allegation of demand for bribe emerges. CW1 did not raise any complaint before getting a rejection order disallowing license he urged for. If the allegation is having truth, CW1 should have raised a complaint within a reasonable time, without waiting for the outcome of the proceedings”, it also observed.
Conclusion
The Court further said that in such a case, once it is found by the prosecution records, that the licence was denied by the District Collector for valid reasons stated by him, in the proceedings for license, demand of bribe by the Minister, that too, without arraying any allegation against the District Collector, would posit false implication of the accused persons.
“Thus, the allegations raised by the complainant as to demand of bribe by Sri.Adoor Prakash and the involvement of the other accused are found to be not made out prima facie or not even a strong suspicion could be gathered. A mere suspicion would not suffice the requirement to go for trial. 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”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Revision Petitions.
Cause Title- State of Kerala v. Sameer Navas (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:82391)
Appearance:
Revision Petitioner: Special PP Rajesh A. and Senior PP Rekha S.
Respondents: Advocates A. Muhammed Musthafa, M. Ajay, Sharan Shahier, Abhilash A.J., Suhail Ali. A, M. Ajay, Sharan Shahier, and V.P. Prasad.
