Accused Treated As Acquitted Where Demand Not Cogently Proved; Benefit Of Doubt Directed

A two-judge bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan heard an appeal by the widow of a deceased accused against a judgment of the High Court of Kerala which had upheld convictions under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appeal challenged the finding that the accused, a lower division clerk in the Passport Office, had demanded and accepted a gratification of Rs.200 over a lawful passport fee.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, and directed that the deceased accused be treated as acquitted of all charges. The bench observed that while "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," the prosecution had failed to establish cogent proof of demand in the present matter. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: Background The prosecution alleged that the accused had demanded Rs.200 as gratification over and above the lawful passport fee of Rs.1,000 and that on 16.06.2003 tainted currency notes totalling Rs.1,200 were handed to him at his residence in a CBI-laid trap. The complainant (PW1) lodged the complaint and, pursuant to the trap, the accused was apprehended and his hand wash was collected. At trial PW1 did not support the prosecution on the question of demand; the trial court convicted on the basis that lodging of the complaint and delivery of tainted notes were proved, and the High Court affirmed that conviction.

On appeal before the Supreme Court the appellant argued that the courts below had not properly appreciated the accused’s explanation under Section 313 CrPC, namely that he believed he was accepting only the prescribed fee and was unaware that two Rs.100 notes had been inserted between two Rs.500 notes. The CBI relied on recovery and evidence of independent witnesses (PW2 and PW3) and submitted that demand could be proved by circumstances even where the complainant turned hostile.

The Supreme Court examined the evidence, noting that aside from PW1 — whose trial testimony raised concerns because he said he had been misled into assisting the CBI — the prosecution did not produce reliable evidence that the accused had counted the money or was aware of the extra Rs.200 when accepting it. The Court reiterated the settled principle that an accused’s explanation addressing incriminating circumstances must be considered and, where plausible, accepted. Finding absence of cogent proof of demand and that the lawful fee component was established, the Court concluded that the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, the judgments of the High Court and trial court were set aside, the accused was treated as acquitted, and pending applications were disposed of.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 11212/2022) Case Title: Mini v. CBI/SPE Cochin Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Adolf Mathew, Advocate; Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Sonia Mathur, Senior Advocate; Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR; Mrs. Vimla Sinha, Advocate; Mr. Gautam Bharadwaj, Advocate; Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Nikhil Chandra Jaiswal, Advocate; Ms. Manasi Sridhar, Advocate; Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR