LexMINI versus CBI/SPE COCHIN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.