The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, ruling that the mere recovery of tainted money is not conclusive proof of guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution failed to prove the crucial element of demand beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused’s plausible explanation under Section 313 CrPC was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Facts Of The Case:
The case involved an appeal against the conviction of a Lower Division Clerk at the Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution’s case was that the accused demanded an additional ₹500 as a bribe from the complainant to expedite his passport application. After negotiation, an initial gratification of ₹200 was to be paid along with the official ₹1000 fee. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) laid a trap, and on June 16, 2003, the complainant handed over ₹1200 in treated currency notes to the accused at his residence, leading to his immediate apprehension. However, during the trial, the original complainant turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s story regarding the demand for a bribe. The defense, articulated in the accused’s Section 313 CrPC statement, was that he had agreed to help the complainant as a favour after he was introduced by an advocate. He claimed to have accepted the money believing it to be only the official ₹1000 passport fee and was unaware that two extra ₹100 notes had been concealed between the currency, thus denying any knowledge of or demand for illicit gratification.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case began with the conviction of the accused by the Trial Court under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This conviction was based on the evidence of the trap and the recovery of tainted currency, despite the original complainant (PW1) turning hostile and not supporting the prosecution’s case on the demand of a bribe.Aggrieved by the Trial Court’s decision, the convicted accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 1164 of 2010 before the High Court of Kerala. The High Court, vide its judgment and order dated January 14, 2020, upheld the conviction, affirming the findings of the Trial Court.Subsequently, the widow of the deceased convict filed a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 11212 of 2022 before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the High Court’s order. The Supreme Court granted leave and, after hearing the appeal, allowed it in the final judgment dated August 13, 2025. The apex court set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below and acquitted the accused of all charges.
READ ALSO :Supreme Court Key Ruling: Tenant’s Defence Struck Out for Missing 30-Day Deposit Deadline
Court Observation:
In its observations, the Supreme Court underscored the fundamental legal principle that the mere recovery of tainted money, by itself, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court emphasized that the crucial element of “demand” for illegal gratification must be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt and cannot be presumed. It found that when the original complainant turned hostile and the prosecution failed to provide any other reliable evidence to prove the demand, the courts below erred in not properly considering the accused’s plausible explanation offered under Section 313 of the CrPC. The Court held that the defence—that the accused was unaware of the extra currency notes concealed within the lawful passport fee—was reasonable and created a doubt in the prosecution’s story, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court. The Court acquitted the accused of all charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the vital element of demand for illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court ruled that the mere recovery of tainted money was not conclusive proof of guilt. The accused’s explanation under Section 313 of the CrPC was deemed plausible, creating sufficient doubt in the prosecution’s case. Consequently, the benefit of doubt was accorded to the accused, who was to be treated as acquitted posthumously.
Case Details:
Case Title: Mini vs. CBI/SPE Cochin Citation: 2025 INSC 980 Criminal Appeal No.:(Arising out of SLP(Cr1.) No(s). 11212/2022) Date of Judgement: August 13, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Download The Judgement Here