The case relates to the smuggling of around 56 kg of gold worth Rs. 17.86 crores through Cochin International Airport, causing a loss of Rs. 1.83 crores customs duties and cess to the government of India.

Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed the pleas preferred by accused C. Madhavan (A1), Dr. S. Anil Kumar (A8) and Ahmed Suhail (A11) and, observed that there are prima facie materials available against them from the prosecution records.

It was also observed that merely because the accused was discharged from departmental proceedings, that alone cannot be ground for discharge:

“this Court is of the view that prima facie commission of offences alleged against the revision petitioners to be found from the prosecution records. In such a case, the plea of discharge cannot be considered…on merits, no interference in the common order is warranted. That apart, on the facts in the instant revision petitions, merely on the ground of exemption given to the revision petitioners in the departmental proceedings, ipso facto, itself is not a reason to grant discharge. Therefore, the impugned order need no interference by this Court by exercising the limited power of revision, as no absolute illegality or arbitrariness to be found therein.”

The Court thus directed the Special Court to proceeding with the trial and finalise the same within 6 months.

The prosecution case is that the 1^st accused, while working in Air Cargo Complex (ACC) and holding additional charge of Air Intelligence Unit of Customs (AIU) and Administration, abused his official position and conspired with the other accused to smuggle gold into India through Cochin International Airport. It is further alleged that pursuant to the conspiracy, the 1^st accused arranged smooth entry for the smugglers/accused without customs checking through the officers posted by him. The petitioners are also alleged to have received illegal gifts for assisting the smuggling.

The accused persons are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 201, 210 B and 420 IPC along with Sections 7, 12, 13(2) and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The petitioners contended that prima facie there were no materials available to prove the allegations. The clean chit given during departmental inquiry is also relied on by them to contend that they were innocent of the allegations levelled.

The prosecution opposed the plea and argued that exoneration in departmental proceedings would not absolve criminal liability.

After hearing the parties, the Court looked in detail into the charges against the accused as well as the prosecution materials. It also placed reliance on the recent decision in R. Balachandran v. State of Kerala (2026).

The Court opined that the settled position is that a court considering plea of discharge has to examine whether the prosecution materials prima facie show ingredients of the offences alleged or show a strong suspicion warranting trial.

“The rational behind this legal position is to arrest pre- trial termination of criminal proceedings without allowing the prosecution to adduce evidence in support of the allegations, where atleast a strong suspicion to be made out from the prosecution records, which would likely to be proved while adducing evidence in the case, during trial. It is also equally well settled that a mere suspicion would not be sufficient in the place of 'strong suspicion',” the Court explained.

Finding that the Special Court rightly dismissed the discharge plea, the Court dismissed the challenge to the same.

Case No: Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.524/2025, 546/2025 & 810/2025

Case Title: C. Madhavan v. CBI, Dr. S. Anil Kumar v. CBI and Ahmed Suhail v. CBI

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 493

Counsel for the petitioners: Geo Paul, C.R. Pramod, S. Ashok Kumar. Jacob George Pallath, Harikrishnan A.S., Akshai K.R., C.B. Gautham, Mariyam Mathews, A. Sudhi Vasudevan (Sr.), Chanchal Seraphine, Jose Jones Joseph, V. John Sebastian Ralph, Vishnu Chandran, Ralph Reti John, Giridhar Krishna Kumar, Geethu T.A., Mary Greeshma, Liz Johny, Krishnapriya Sreekumar

Counsel for the respondents: Sreelal N. Warrier – Special Public Prosecutor

Click to Read/Download Judgment