Oral Allegations Alone Can't Sustain Bribe Charges Against Ministers, Persons Holding High Posts: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has observed that when an allegation of demand of bribe by a Minister is raised, the same cannot be merited merely on the basis of oral statements and it would require thorough scrutiny.Justice A. Badharudeen made the observation while dismissing three connected criminal revision petitions filed by the State of Kerala challenging the discharge of former Minister Adoor Prakash, his then private secretary V. Raju, and other officials accused in a vigilance case related to alleged irregularities in the grant of a wholesale ration depot licence.The case arose when the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) had charged the accused under Sections 7, 12, and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and Section 120B of the IPC, alleging that the former minister demanded ₹30 lakh for granting a ration licence at Omassery in Kozhikode. The Special Judge, Kozhikode, discharged all accused in 2021, finding no prima facie case. The State sought to overturn that discharge, contending that the trial court had improperly evaluated evidence in a mini-trial.The Public Prosecutor submitted that the Special Judge considered the inconsistencies in the statements of CW1 and CW 2 by conducting a mini trial. The Public Prosecutor contended that at the time of framing charge or at the stage of Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the special Court has no power to conduct a mini trial by weighing the evidence in detail. The Court observed that in allegations of demand of bribes by Ministers, thorough scrutiny is required to rule out animosity. “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.” the bench observed. The bench further noted that when an allegation of demand of illegal gratification is raised by a person after they have failed to achieve their goal, the oral allegation must be adjudged as an afterthought to wreck vengeance against the officer, unless any other cogent materials are brought out in support of the allegations.“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 observed. The Court noted that such evaluation of the circumstances is permissible to avoid abuse of the process of law and avoid false implication of higher officials. “Such an exercise 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.” the bench noted. The Court observed that the allegation of demand of bribe occurred only on the non-grant of license to CW1. “If the allegation is having truth, CW1 should have raised a complaint within a reasonable time, without waiting for the outcome of the proceedings. 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.” the bench observedThe Court noted that the allegation as to demand of bribe and the involvement of the other accused are not made out prima facie. “A mere suspicion would not suffice the requirement to go for trial.” the bench added. The Court thus dismissed the revision petition. Case Title: State of Kerala v Sameer Navas and Connected CasesCase No: Crl Rev. Pet. 173/ 2023 and connected casesCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 710Counsel for Revision Petitioner: Rajesh A (Spl. PP), Rekha S (Sr. PP)Counsel for Respondent: A Muhammed Musthafa, Abhilash A J, Suhail Ali A, M Ajay, Sharan Shahier, V P PrasadClick Here To Read/ Download Judgment

Oral Allegations Alone Can't Sustain Bribe Charges Against Ministers, Persons Holding High Posts: Kerala High Court

Anamika MJ

Tags