High Court upholds trial order, holds prima facie material exists to proceed against customs official accused of taking bribes

A single-judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen of the High Court of Kerala on Wednesday heard a criminal revision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and considered whether an accused could be discharged at the pre-charge stage. The petition challenged the Special Court’s order dated 31.12.2025 in C.M.P. No.613/2025 in C.C. No.1/2023 dismissing a discharge application by accused No.3 in a CBI anti-corruption prosecution arising out of alleged bribery at Calicut International Airport.

The court affirmed the Special Judge’s conclusion that prima facie materials existed to proceed to trial against the revision petitioner on offences alleged under Sections 120B read with 409 IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018. The High Court noted that approver statements and voluntary confessions under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, along with other materials, furnished sufficient foundation for framing charges and that the value and reliability of such statements were matters to be adjudicated at trial. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is well settled law that at the time of discharge, the court cannot go for a rowing enquiry by meticulously analysing the prosecution records within the sphere of a mini trial to record its finding. The power of the court while considering discharge plea shall be with a view to find whether, prima facie, the offence/offences alleged is/are made out to go for trial or at least a strong suspicion to proceed with trial. While doing such endeavour, when the court, prima facie, finds that the offence/offences is/are made out to go for trial or a strong suspicion which would warrant trial, discharge plea must fail. ... Thus, in the instant case, prima facie, there are materials to proceed with trial of the revision petitioner/accused No.3."

Background The prosecution alleged that several customs officials, including the revision petitioner who was arrayed as accused No.3, received illegal gratification to release dutiable goods and passports without imposing customs duty or confiscation during joint surprise checks on 11–12 January 2021. The charge sheet set out specific allegations that accused No.3 accepted amounts ranging from Rs.15,000 to Rs.30,000 from different travellers and thereby committed criminal breach of trust and corruption offences. The petitioner contended that the materials did not implicate him and that the prosecution primarily relied on extra‑judicial statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and on CCTV footage, which did not capture the alleged acceptance of gratification inside the customs room.

The CBI and the Special Court relied on statements by several travellers, some of whom had since been granted pardon and had become approvers, and on voluntary statements of co-accused that named the petitioner. The High Court recorded that approver evidence and statements under Section 108 were admissible and that their probative value required trial scrutiny. The judgment referred to an earlier order of this Court which quashed proceedings against certain travellers, observing that "Merely relying on the CCTV footage showing their presence at the airport and their presence before the customs officer by itself would not prima facie justify that they had paid illegal gratification unless the same is specifically recovered by the manner known to law." The High Court distinguished that result from the present case on the basis that here confession statements and approver evidence linked the petitioner to the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

The High Court dismissed the revision petition and directed the registry to forward a copy of the order to the jurisdictional court for further steps. The court clarified that questions about voluntariness, corroboration, and the weight of approver and CCTV evidence were for determination at trial and not for a discharge hearing.

Case No.: CRL.REV.PET NO.162 OF 2026 (2026:KER:16934) Case Title: Yaser Arafat K v. The Central Bureau of Investigation (Anti-Corruption Branch, Cochin) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): SRI. P.A. MOHAMMED SHAH; SHRI. RENOY VINCENT; SRI. SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI; SHRI. CHELSON CHEMBARATHY; SHRI. ABEE SHEJIRIK FASLA N.K.; SMT. NANDA SURENDRAN; SHRI. SAHAL SHAJAHAN; SHRI. AQUIN KURUVILLA TOM; SHRI. M.N. MOHAMMED HUSSAIN; SMT. NAFIYA SHAHALA C.K.; SMT. AYISHA RISWANA For the Respondent(s): SHRI. SREELAL N. WARRIER, Special Public Prosecutor, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)