ORDER : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. Accused Nos.14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27 and 30 have filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , and the prayer in this petition is as follows: “to quash Annexure-I Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1/2023 on the files of the Hon’ble Court of the Additional Special Sessions Judge (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam arising out of FIR No.RC 02(A)/2021-CBI/ACB, Cochin.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI in detail. Perused the relevant documents. 3. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under  Section 12 0B r/w 409 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) as well as under Sections 7 , 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (as amended in 2018) (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC (Amendment) Act, 2018’). As per the final report filed by the CBI, 122 charges specifically raised against different accused persons. 4. The specific allegation against the petitioners is as follows: On 12.01.2021, the 14th accused conspired with the 9th accused, a customs inspector, who demanded and accepted ?15,000, as illegal gratification to release the baggage of the 14th accused, containing contraband without confiscation or customs duty, causing loss to the Government of India and unlawful gain to the accused. Similarly, the 15th accused conspired with the 9th accused, who accepted ?20,000 to release baggage containing contraband foreign cigarettes under the same conditions, resulting in causing loss to the Government of India and unlawful gain to him. On 12.01.2021, the passport of the 16th accused was taken by Customs officials, and he paid ?15,000 as a bribe to the 10th accused to get his baggage containing foreign cigarettes released without confiscation, customs duty, or penalty. Similarly, on the same day, the passport of the 19th accused was taken by Customs officials, and the 5th accused demanded a bribe of ?15,000. The 19th accused paid ?8,000 as a bribe to the 5th accused to get his baggage containing cosmetics, protein powder, and other items released without confiscation, customs duty, or penalty. On 12.01.2021, the passport of the 20th accused was taken by Customs officials, who demanded a bribe of ?25,000. The 19th accused paid ?8,000 as a bribe to the 5th accused to get his baggage containing cosmetics, protein powder, and other items released without confiscation, customs duty, or penalty. On 12.01.2021, the passport of the 20th accused was taken by Customs officials, who demanded a bribe of ?25,000. He paid ?10,000, including ?3,000 entrusted by the 29th accused, as a bribe to accused Nos.5 and got his baggage released without it being subjected to confiscation, customs duty, or penalty. Similarly, on 11.01.2021, accused Nos. 23 and 24, whose baggage was marked with ‘X’ by Customs officials, paid ?6,000 to the 11th accused, the head havaldar, who accepted the amount as instructed by the 2nd accused, on a demand of ?10,000, to get their baggage released. Similarly, on 11.01.2021, the 27th accused paid ?5,000 as a bribe to the 12th accused to get his baggage containing cigarettes, cosmetics, protein powder, and clothes released without duty or confiscation. Likewise, the 30th accused paid ?10,000 as a bribe to the 5th accused for the release of his contraband. 5. On summarizing the allegations against the petitioners herein, the allegation is that the petitioners had paid illegal gratification to the accused customs officials to get their contraband of cosmetics and dress materials released without being subjected to payment of customs duty or to confiscation or to adjudication. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, while arguing this case, though prayed for quashment of the case as against all the accused, initially, during hearing, it is brought out that as far as accused Nos.14, 15, 16, and 30 are concerned, the prosecution had collected evidence to show payment and acceptance of bribe by them. That is to say, the A14 chart paper would show that the 14th accused paid a bribe of ?15,000 to the 9th accused for the release of contraband, which is corroborated by CCTV footage (Camera 276) and the seizure of contraband worth ?3,88,175. The 15th accused paid a bribe of ?20,000 to the 9th accused for the release of contraband, corroborated by CCTV footage and the seizure of contraband worth ?1,97,000. The 16th accused paid a bribe of ?15,000 to the 10th accused for the release of contraband, as corroborated by CCTV footage and the seizure of contraband worth ?16,34,700. The 15th accused paid a bribe of ?20,000 to the 9th accused for the release of contraband, corroborated by CCTV footage and the seizure of contraband worth ?1,97,000. The 16th accused paid a bribe of ?15,000 to the 10th accused for the release of contraband, as corroborated by CCTV footage and the seizure of contraband worth ?16,34,700. The 30th accused paid a bribe of ?10,000 to the 5th accused for the release of contraband, corroborated by CCTV footage and the seizure of contraband worth ?3,10,300, thereby implicating the petitioners in this crime. But it is specifically pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as far as accused Nos.19, 20, 23, 24 and 27 are concerned, nothing available in the prosecution records to see recovery of the alleged bribe money and the prosecution merely relied on the statements of the accused and the co-accused to justify the prosecution allegation as to commission of offences by them. It is pointed out that the prosecution records relied upon, to fasten criminal culpability on accused Nos. 19, 20, 23, 24, and 27, do not, in any way, justify their implication in this crime as primary evidence for the commission of offences under Sections 12 0B r/w 409 of IPC as well as under Sections 7 , 8 and 12 of the PC (Amendment) Act, 2018 could not made. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners pressed for quashment of the case against accused Nos.19, 20, 23, 24, and 27, in consideration of the fact that against accused Nos.14, 15, 16 and 30, there are materials prima facie, warranting trial. 7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, representing the Central Bureau of Investigation, fairly relied on the statement of the 19th accused, which corroborates the role of the 5th accused in demanding and subsequently reducing the bribe amount for the release of the contraband. Similarly, the learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on the statement of the 20th accused to establish the role of accused Nos. 5 and 6, the statements of accused Nos.23 and 24 to establish the role of accused Nos.2 and 11, the statement of the 27th accused to establish the role of accused Nos.12 and 6, and the statement of the 30th accused to establish the role of the 5th accused to implicate them in this crime. 5 and 6, the statements of accused Nos.23 and 24 to establish the role of accused Nos.2 and 11, the statement of the 27th accused to establish the role of accused Nos.12 and 6, and the statement of the 30th accused to establish the role of the 5th accused to implicate them in this crime. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, CCTV footage and seizure of contraband from accused Nos.20 and 27 are also available. As far as accused Nos.19, 23 and 24 are concerned, no recovery is allowed even though issuance of challan in favour of accused Nos.23 and 24 are the materials supporting the prosecution case. 8. On going through the records available and the statements produced by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, it could be gathered that even though there is allegation that from accused Nos.20 and 27, some contraband were recovered, in fact, the same were not specifically disclosed, and no such recovery could be gathered specifically from the prosecution records. As far as accused Nos.19, 23 and 24 are concerned, the prosecution has no case that anything had recovered from them. Merely relying on their confession statements and confession statements of the co-accused, they could not be roped in the array of accused without support of any substantial materials otherwise. 9. In this case, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 12 0B r/w 409 of the IPC as well as under Sections 7 , 8 and 12 of the PC (Amendment) Act, 2018. The law is well settled that in order prove an offence under Section 7 of the PC (Amendment) Act, 2018, there must be demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. 10. Going through the prosecution records, as against accused Nos.19, 20, 23, 24 and 27, the essential ingredients for the said offences could not be justified prima facie. 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. To put it otherwise, accused Nos.19, 20, 23, 24 and 27, admittedly, being travellers, would have met the customs officer as part of routine clearance and that would appear in CCTV footage. To put it otherwise, accused Nos.19, 20, 23, 24 and 27, admittedly, being travellers, would have met the customs officer as part of routine clearance and that would appear in CCTV footage. Thus, it appears that the prosecution as against accused Nos.19, 20, 23, 24 and 27 are unwarranted, and the same are liable to be quashed while disallowing quashment as against accused Nos.14, 15 16 and 30, against whom, the prosecution records would show recovery of contraband to justify payment of illegal gratification as alleged by the prosecution, prima facie warranting trial. In the result, the petition stands allowed in part. Annexure-I Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.1/2023 on the files of the Additional Special Sessions Judge (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam, arising out of FIR No.RC 02(A)/2021-CBI/ACB, Cochin, as against accused Nos.19, 20, 23, 24 and 27 stand quashed. The quashment prayer at the instance of accused Nos.14, 15, 16 and 30 is dismissed, with direction to the special court to expedite trial against them, without fail. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the special court forthwith for information and further steps.