ORDER : 1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been moved by the petitioner/2nd accused in C.C.No.9 of 2016 on the files of the Special CBI Court, Ernakulam and the prayers in this petition is to quash Annexure-A1 Final Report and all further proceedings against the petitioner/2nd accused in C.C. No. 9 of 2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/2nd accused as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the prosecution records, witness statements, and the written statement filed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI. 3. While seeking quashment as sought for, the learned counsel for the petitioner/2nd accused argued that going by the prosecution allegations, the specific allegation against the petitioner/2nd accused who got arrayed as the 2nd accused being a travel agent is that he hatched conspiracy with the other accused during the period 2008-2011 and he deposited Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven thousand only) in the account of the 1st accused on 21.03.2011 as illegal gratification. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner/2nd accused, even if it is admitted that the 2nd accused deposited Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven thousand only) in the account of the 1st accused on 21.03.2011 that was during the period in which the 1st accused ceased to be an officer of the Cochin International Airport Limited (for short, ‘CIAL’ hereafter), therefore the allegation of the prosecution that the 2nd accused committed offences alleged would not sustain. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner/2nd accused relied on the statement given by Sri.Anil A K (witness No.9) stating that Sri.George John Armed Police Sub-Inspector (for short ‘APSI’ hereafter) joined in CIAL on 26.05.2008 and relieved on 24.04.2009. He also stated that Sri.V.N. Prasanth Kumar Civil Police Officer (CPO) joined on 12.12.2006 and was relieved on 20.09.2011. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner/2nd accused when an officer who is not in charge of CIAL to do any favour as alleged by the prosecution during the period 2011, if any amount is deposited in his account by the petitioner/2nd accused travel agent, the same would not make any offence under the the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the PC Act’ hereafter). Therefore this matter would require quashment at the instance of the petitioner/accused. 4. Therefore this matter would require quashment at the instance of the petitioner/accused. 4. Dispelling this contention the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI would submit that it is true that as per the statement given by Sri.Anil A K (witness No.9) the 1st accused worked for the period between 26.05.2008 till20.04.2009 and Rs.11,000/- was deposited in the name of the 1st accused by the 2nd accused on 21.03.2011. But it is specifically pointed out that in fact the entire allegations overlays the period from 2006 to 2011. The 1st accused who worked as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police even though relieved from his assignment in CIAL, he was behind illegal transport of travellers without necessary emigration clearance, thereafter up to 2011 as alleged in this case. Therefore his complicity is a matter of evidence and quashment could not be considered. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI has pointed out the statements given by Sri.Prasanth Kumar V.M. (witness No.42) and Sri M.D. Gokul Das (witness No.43) who were earlier arrayed as accused and later became approvers to substantiate this contention. 5. On perusal of the Final Report in this matter the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 12 0B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 11 , 12, 14, and Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(b) and (d) of the PC Act by the accused. The Charge Nos. – I, II and III as per the Final Report is against the 1st accused, out of which Charge No. – I and II read as under:- “CHARGE- I - During 2008-2011 A-1 Shri George John being a public servant working as Armed Police Sub Inspector/Counter Officer, Immigration Wing CIAL, Nedumbassery entered into criminal conspiracy with Shri Prasanth Kumar (approver), Civil Police Officer posted at Immigration Wing CIAL, Nedumbassery during 2006-2011and engaged in the conspiracy even aftertransferred from CIAL, Nedumbasserry to accept or obtain valuable things in the form of money without any consideration from travel agents whom they know to have been or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in the emigration clearance of passengers, who had traveled without valid travel documents referred by them and to make pecuniary advantage by abusing their official position. Shri Gokuldas M.D (approver) of M/s Cambridge International, Thambanoor, Trivandrum, A-2 Shri Mohammed Jaleel of M/s Stargate Travel Bureau, Trivandrum and A-3 Shri Bancy Kumar of M/s Pulari Air Travels, Trivandrum also joined the conspiracy agreeing to give the money to A-1 Shri George John for the facilitation given by him for the passengers, who had travelled abroad without valid travel documents. In pursuance of the conspiracy A-1 Shri George John secured Savings Bank account number13880100048404 of Shri Prasanth Kumar (approver), which he was maintaining at Federal Bank, Kodungalloor Branch and provided to Shri Gokuldas M.D. (approver), A-2 Shri Mohammed Jaleel, A-3 Shri. Bancy Kumar and unknown others. Shri Gokuldas M.D. (approver) deposited an amount of Rs.1556/-, Shri Mohammed Jaleel (A-2) deposited an amount of Rs.11000/-and Shri Bancy Kumar A-3 deposited an amount of Rs.5500/- into the above account of Shri Prasanth Kumar(approver). In pursuance of the said conspiracy Shri Prasanth Kumar withdrew the said amount from the account and handed it to Sri. George John A-1. In pursuance of the said conspiracy Shri Prasanth Kumar (approver) and Shri George John A-1 by abusing their official position obtained pecuniary advantage. Thereby A1 Sri. George John, the 2nd accused Sri. Mohammed Haleel and the 3rd accused Sri. Bancy Kumar committed offences punishable under Section 120B of IPC r/w Section 11 , Section 13 (2) r/w13(1)(b) and (d) and Section 12 of the PC Act, 1988.” Charge - II:- A-1 Shri George John, being a public servant employed as Armed Police Sub Inspector/Counter officer at Immigration Wing, CIAL Nedumbassery from 26.5.2008 to 24.4.2009 in pursuance of the conspiracy narrated charge No.1 habitually accepted or obtained valuable thing in form of money without any consideration from travel agents whom they know to have been or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in the emigration clearance of passengers, who had without valid travelling documents referred by travel agents and to make pecuniary advantage by abusing his official position to the extend of Rs.46000/- from Shri Gokuldas (Approver) Sri. Mohammed Jaleel (A-2) and Shri Bancy Kumar (A-3) and unknown others and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 11, 13(2) r/w 13(1 b) of PC Act 1988. 6. Mohammed Jaleel (A-2) and Shri Bancy Kumar (A-3) and unknown others and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 11, 13(2) r/w 13(1 b) of PC Act 1988. 6. The specific charge against the 2nd accused is the charge No. IV in the Final Report and the same reads as under:- “Charge–IV- A-2 Shri Mohammed Jaleel in pursuance of the conspiracy narrated charge No.1 during the period 2008 to 2011 had abetted the commission of offence under section 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) and 11 of the P.C. Act 1988 by A-1 Shri George John, who was a public servant, employed as Armed Police Sub Inspector at Immigration Wing, CIAL, Nedumbasserry from 26.5.2008 to 24.4.2009 by offering him bribes and an amount of Rs. 11000/- deposited on 21.03.2011 through SB A/c No 13880100048404 of Shri Prasanth Kumar, CPO (Approver) maintained with Federal Bank, Kodungallor branch and thereby he committed offence punishable u/s12 of the PC Act.” 7. Adverting to the matter in issues, the allegation against the petitioner is that as part of conspiracy hatched between him and the other accused, he deposited Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven thousand only) on 21.03.2011 in the account of Sri.Prasanth Kumar CPO (approver/witness No.42) maintained with Federal Bank Kodungalloor as bribe for clearing passengers without emigration clearance and thereby committed offences under Section 12 0B of IPC as well as Sections 11 , 12, 14, and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(b) & (d) of the PC Act. Iit is discernible from the statement given by witness No.9 that Sri. George John (APSI) joined CIAL Nedumbassery on 26.05.2008 and was relieved on 24.04.2009. The deposit allegedly made by the 2nd accused on21.03.2011 was evidently after the first accused had been relieved from his assignment at CIAL. On perusal of the statement given by Sri.Prasanth Kumar VN (witness No.42) who turned as an approver, it could be gathered that he worked at CIAL in the emigration department by deputation from 2007 to 2012. He was at the counter for issuing Embarkation/Disembarkation Cards collection and lining up passengers. During this period (2007-2012) in the emigration department Sri.Sajan Gorege, Sri.George John Sub-Inspectors worked therein as counter officers and MR.Mahesh Kumar as Supervisor. He stated further that he had maintained an account at Federal Bank Kodungalloor branch and he produced statements of account from 18.05.2007 to 02.08.2014 showing remittance and withdrawal of money from the said account. 8. During this period (2007-2012) in the emigration department Sri.Sajan Gorege, Sri.George John Sub-Inspectors worked therein as counter officers and MR.Mahesh Kumar as Supervisor. He stated further that he had maintained an account at Federal Bank Kodungalloor branch and he produced statements of account from 18.05.2007 to 02.08.2014 showing remittance and withdrawal of money from the said account. 8. According to him, during his tenure Sri. George John used to visit CIAL Nedumbassery during this period. Further Sri. George John enquired about the account details of witness No.42 and also ensured whether an ATM card would be available in his account. He further stated that Sri. George John had informed him that some money would be credited to the account of Sri. Prasanth Kumar, which had to be withdrawn and handed over to Sri. George John. A similar statement was also made by Sri.Prasanth Kumar against Sri. Mahesh Kumar. According to him thereafter the officers including Sri.George John used to withdraw money from this account by using his ATM card and he was given food from top hotels and also given liquor in this deal. He stated that he along with Sri.Mahesh Kumar and Sri.George John had meetings at Golf View Bar and Quality Bar nearby CIAL and he was given this treat for receiving and returning the money through his account. His further statement is that the above officers reached the Airport during the period when they were absent from duty also to get the money. He also stated that even after the first accused was relieved from duty, money transferred into his account by the travel agents were withdrawn and given back to Sri.George John. He provided the details of the said transactions as mentioned in the statement form part of the prosecution records. Witness No.43 earlier arrayed as the 3rd accused, turned as an approver and also given statement that he worked as a commission agent to clear visa stamping, air ticketing etc. According to him, when any obstruction in getting emigration clearance would be noticed, he used to collect money from passengers to entrust the same to the officers at the Airport. He also stated that the same practice applied in relation to passengers who travel on visit visas without genuine documents. According to him, when any obstruction in getting emigration clearance would be noticed, he used to collect money from passengers to entrust the same to the officers at the Airport. He also stated that the same practice applied in relation to passengers who travel on visit visas without genuine documents. According to him he had assisted in clearing 10 to 20 passengers through Sri.George John and he made acquaintance with Sri.Goerge John through Sri.Mohammed Jaleel who is the petitioner herein. He also stated that Sri. Mohammed Jaleel and Sri. George John were familiar to each other prior to that. He also stated regarding remittance of Rs.1556/- as per paying slip dated 23.11.2009 in Federal Bank Statue Branch provided by Sri.George John and the said amount was given towards the balance amount for clearing his passengers without emigration clearance. 9. In the statement filed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor in Paragraph No. 3 to 10 it has been contended as under:- “3. It is submitted that his active involvement as a travel agent in the criminal conspiracy has been clearly established during the investigation. The deposit of Rs. 11,000 by the petitioner into the account linked to the public servant (A-1), through the conduit of the approver (Prasanth Kumar - CW42), is a crucial link in the chain of the criminal conspiracy unearthed during the investigation. 4. Evidence of Bank officials (Shri. Andrews - CW1, Smt. Preetha K. - CW2 and Prasanth P. CW7) confirm the relevant deposit records, while approvers Prasanth Kumar (CW42) and Gokuldas (CW43) and other witnesses have explained in detail the modus operandi adopted for routing payments for illegal clearance of passengers. Collectively, these constitute strong circumstantial evidence against the petitioner. 5. It is submitted that Prasanth Kumar (CW42), approver, in his own statement, admits to receiving illegal payments and transferring them to A-1. The fact that his official duties may have been limited does not negate his active participation in the illegal network. His account was purposefully used as a conduit for these bribe payments. 6. Also, the deposit records (D No. 1, D No. 2 and D No. 5) clearly establish that Rs. 11,000 was deposited by the petitioner, Mohammed Jaleel, on 21.03.2011. His account was purposefully used as a conduit for these bribe payments. 6. Also, the deposit records (D No. 1, D No. 2 and D No. 5) clearly establish that Rs. 11,000 was deposited by the petitioner, Mohammed Jaleel, on 21.03.2011. This is corroborated by the testimony of Gokuldas (W43) and Prasanth Kumar (W42) regarding the modus operandi and by statements from bank officials (CW1, CW2, CW7), along with supporting documentary proof (D No. 1, D No. 2 and D No. 5) 7. It is most humbly submitted that the petitioner's reliance on Neeraj Dutta is also misplaced. This judgment lays down the requirement of proving demand and acceptance for convicting a public servant u/s 7 or 13(1)(d) PC Act. However, the petitioner here is not charged as the principal offender under those sections he faces charges of abetment and criminal conspiracy. For these offences, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove a formal demand by the public servant. 8. Accordingly, the Charge 12 of the PC Act does not require proof of a direct demand or acceptance of gratification by a public servant. The very act of offering a bribe is itself an offence. In abetment charges u/s 12 of the PC Act, it is not essential to prove an explicit demand by the public servant. The petitioner's conduct in depositing money into a known conduit account, in synchrony with other accused, is compelling proof of intentional facilitation. 9. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CBI v. Ramesh Gelli, (2016) 3 SCC 788 , in conspiracy and abetment cases, it is unnecessary to identify a specific passenger cleared in exchange for each payment, so long as the purpose and pattern of the illegal scheme are proved. The evidence of deposits into the designated conduit account, corroborated orally and in documents is more than sufficient to establish a prima facie case, which alone is required at the pretrial stage to proceed further with for a trial, to establish the charges conclusively as against the Accused. 10. It is submitted that the charges framed against the petitioner U/s 120B IPC, 11, 12, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) & (d) and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are based on specific and cogent materials. These include the pay-in slip dated 21.03.2011 evidencing deposit of Rs. 10. It is submitted that the charges framed against the petitioner U/s 120B IPC, 11, 12, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) & (d) and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are based on specific and cogent materials. These include the pay-in slip dated 21.03.2011 evidencing deposit of Rs. 11,000 by the petitioner into the conduit account of approver Prasanth Kumar, statements of bank officials (Shri. Andrews - CW1, Smt. Preetha K. - CW2 and Prasanth P. - CW7) identifying the transaction and account holder, and statements of the approvers Prasanth Kumar (CW42) and Gokuldas (CW43) detailing the conspiracy and identifying the petitioner's role. Such evidence, taken together, clearly discloses the commission of the charged offences.” 10. In the instant case, it would appear that the revision petitioner herein worked in CIAL from 26.05.2008 till 24.06.2009. But the prosecution allegation is that even though the revision petitioner was relieved of his duties in CIAL on 24.04.2009, he continued to clear passengers without emigration clearance with the aid of other accused. The statement of Sri.Prasanth Kumar V.M. and Sri M.D. Gokul Das would show that even after retirement, the petitioner continuously reached CIAL and facilitated travels of passengers without emigration clearance on getting bribes from the travel agents. The remittance of amounts in this regard into the account of Sri. Prasanth Kumar, and the subsequent withdrawal of the same using his ATM card, overlapping the period upto 2011 along with the treat provided to Sri.Prasanthkumar by the revision petitioner and other officials for the purpose of this adjustment, are prima facie made out from the prosecution records. Therefore merely on the ground that the revision petitioner was relieved from his assignment in CIAL on 24.04.2009, it could not be held at this stage that he did not have any role in clearing the passengers without emigration clearance as alleged by the prosecution. 11. On the contrary, the prosecution materials supported by the statements of Witness Nos. 42 and 43, as well as the statements of the bank officials (CWs 1, 2, and 7), with the aid of Document Nos. 1, 2, and 5—prima facie establishes the involvement of the petitioner in the crime, thereby necessitating the trial of the matter after framing of charge. In such a case quashment could not be considered for the reasons urged by the revision petitioner. 1, 2, and 5—prima facie establishes the involvement of the petitioner in the crime, thereby necessitating the trial of the matter after framing of charge. In such a case quashment could not be considered for the reasons urged by the revision petitioner. Therefore the revision petition is liable to fail and is accordingly dismissed. It is specifically made clear that the observations in this order have no binding effect while deciding the case on merits, and the same are intended to address the plea of quashment. During trial the special judge shall decide the case on merits on the strength of evidence to be adduced.