ORDER : A.BADHARUDEEN, J. [Crl.MC No.10498/2025 & Crl.R.P.No.76/2026] Sathyamendra Singh, who is the 4 th accused in C.C.No.1 of 2023, arising out of Crime No.2 of 2021 of Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'CBI'), Kochi, has filed Crl.M.C.No.10498 of 2025 and the prayers herein as under : “For these and other grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this Criminal Miscellaneous Case, and quash Annexure 2 Chargesheet and all further proceedings in CC No.1/2023 of the court of Special Judge for CBI III, Ernakulam, as against the petitioner/accused no.4, so as to secure the ends of justice.” 2. The same petitioner has filed Crl.R.P.No.76 of 2026 challenging order dated 31.12.2025 in C.C.No.1 of 2023, whereby the discharge plea raised by him before the Special Court was dismissed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI. Perused the records. 4. This is a case charge sheeted by the Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE/ACB, Cochin against the accused, thirty in numbers, alleging commission offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC' hereinafter) and Sections 7 , 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act') in Crime No.RC 2(A)/2021/CBI/ACB/Cochin. 5. Precisely, the prosecution allegation is that a joint surprise check was conducted by the officials of CBI and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Cochin at the Calicut International Airport, on the basis of an information alleging rampant corruption by Customs Officials of Calicut International Airport at Karippur from 3.30 a.m. on 12.01.2021 to 5.00 a.m. on 13.01.2021. The accused Nos.1 to 12 and one Ramendra Singh were the Customs Officials, on duty at the airport, as Batch 'B' officials. Accused No.13 was the sub staff on duty to assist the aforesaid officials. The joint surprise check revealed the role of aforesaid customs officials in fraudulently facilitating the import of prohibited/contraband items for trade, by releasing the same without assessing/valuing or undervaluing the goods by obtaining undue advantage from the passengers. The accused Nos. 14 to 30 and the Approvers/CWs. 29 and 31 to 35 (accused Nos. The joint surprise check revealed the role of aforesaid customs officials in fraudulently facilitating the import of prohibited/contraband items for trade, by releasing the same without assessing/valuing or undervaluing the goods by obtaining undue advantage from the passengers. The accused Nos. 14 to 30 and the Approvers/CWs. 29 and 31 to 35 (accused Nos. 22, 25, 28, 29, 36 and 37 during the stage of investigation) are the passengers arrived at the Calicut International Airport from abroad, who were permitted to leave the airport with prohibited/contraband items, after receiving illegal gratification from them. A detailed proceedings regarding the joint surprise check was prepared by the officials of CBI and DRI. Annexure Nos.I to VI shown in the said proceedings are regarding the contraband goods recovered from passengers on 12.01.2021, unaccounted contraband items found near baggage counter at customs arrival hall of the Calicut International Airport, unaccounted articles at the baggage counter, unaccounted cash in the customs area, unaccounted contraband items found in Customs Office Hall of Calicut International Airport and the list of documents seized during the said proceedings. 7. Charge No.72 in the final report, which is pertaining to the petitioner, reads as under; “A-4 Shri. Sathyamendra Singh, while functioning as Customs Superintendent, Calicut International Airport, Karippur, who is authorised to take steps for collection of Customs Duty, imposing Customs Duty on goods detected in re-examination, detection of contraband goods illegally imported on which Shri.Sathyamendra Singh has dominion over it and while these imported illegal items were in the custody of Shri.Sathyamendra Singh, for proper disposal, dishonestly and fraudulently entered into criminal conspiracy among customs officials and smugglers misappropriated 9-cartons of foreign brand contraband cigarettes brought by A-25 Mohammed Haneefa seized from his baggage without penalising or confiscating it, misappropriated 2-boxes (20 packets) of contraband cigarettes in his personal bag for his own use without making record it in the Customs Registers and in furtherance to the criminal conspiracy with A-5, A-6 and A-9 concealed illegal gratification for a total amount of Rs. 107,000/- at his work place in carton box at the X-ray checking machine, which was seized during JSC. Further, he with a criminal and dishonest intention and in pursuance to the conspiracy already hatched among accused customs officials, assisted A-5 Shri. Naresh to safely hide out the illegal gratification collected through Shri. Sherief Choori Aboobacker, a trader. 107,000/- at his work place in carton box at the X-ray checking machine, which was seized during JSC. Further, he with a criminal and dishonest intention and in pursuance to the conspiracy already hatched among accused customs officials, assisted A-5 Shri. Naresh to safely hide out the illegal gratification collected through Shri. Sherief Choori Aboobacker, a trader. Further, he in conspiracy with other customs officials namely A-1 to A-3 and A-5 to A-10, A12 and A-13 illegally withhold contraband cigarettes with ulterior motives for a total value of Rs. 4,24,690/- without cornfiscating or making entry of it in the books of accounts and thereby committed criminal breach of trust U/s. 409 IPC.” 8. While seeking interference in the order under challenge in the criminal revision petition by allowing discharge the accused or else to quash the proceedings as prayed for in the Crl.M.C., the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken attention of this Court to Charge No.72 as extracted hereinabove and also the observations made by the learned Special Judge in the order disallowing the discharge with reference to last portion of paragraph No.53. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was observed by the learned Special Judge that there was no specific allegation of receipt of bribe by accused Nos.4, 8 and 13. As far as A4 is concerned, he is alleged to have committed offence under Section 409 of IPC, and the presence of A4, A8 and A13 therefore as on the date of incident had been established by the prosecution materials and therefore their involvement in the alleged offence is also to be proved during the trial of the case. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, for these reasons the Special Court disallowed the discharge and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, those are not sufficient grounds to disallow plea of discharge. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner further that the specific allegation otherwise is that 9-cartons foreign cigarettes recovered from the bag of the 4 th accused that he had obtained from accused No.25 and in this way prosecution alleges commission of offences under Section 409 read with Section 120B of IPC and offences under Sections 7 , 8 and 12 of the PC Act, by the 4 th accused. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on tracing the statement of A-25 recorded under 108 of the Customs Act (though the same is admissible in evidence) doesn't say nothing regard the allegation. At the same time, prosecution materials if perused in toto, the complicity of the 4 th accused in this crime as alleged in Charge No.72 of the final report could not be found prima facie. In such view of the matter, the prayers in the petition may be considered and appropriate orders to be passed. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for the CBI, while repelling the contentions raised by the petitioner, vehemently submitted that the specific case of the prosecution is that A4 along with other accused persons, who are the officials and passengers, hatched conspiracy with a way to conceal illegal gratification to the tune of Rs.1,07,000/- and they withheld goods worth Rs.4,24,690/- without confiscation of the same. Further there is specific allegation against the petitioner/the 4 th accused that when the bag of the 4 th accused was searched, two boxes of DUNHILL cigarettes, King Size filter, Switzerland made were seized along with the Aadhar card as alleged in Page No.51 of the charge sheet. It is also pointed out that Exts.D3, D4 and D5 are the CCTV footages showing presence of A4 and also receipt of something from A25 by the 4 th accused during the time of occurrence and the occurrence was on 12.01.2021. Apart from that the learned counsel for the CBI has given emphasis on statements of CW3- Hanson, CW5-Nandakumar, CW6-Issac Varghese and CW7- Surendranathan to contend that the presence of the 4 th accused was there and also they had witnessed the petitioner who was the Inspector taking over something secretly from the passenger at about 3:55:55 hours, in front of Customs Room and keep the same in his pocket clandestinely. Further, it was identified from the CCTV footages (Viz. Exts.D3 to D5) that the person who received the same is the petitioner herein. Thus according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, in this case, the accused persons including the petitioner herein hatched conspiracy between them and there is specific recovery of 9 cartons of foreign cigarettes from the bag of the petitioner. Exts.D3 to D5) that the person who received the same is the petitioner herein. Thus according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, in this case, the accused persons including the petitioner herein hatched conspiracy between them and there is specific recovery of 9 cartons of foreign cigarettes from the bag of the petitioner. Thus there are materials to show the involvement of the petitioner in this crime and therefore it is not be safe to conclude at this stage that prima facie the petitioner is innocent so as to grant either discharge or to close the proceedings against him. 10. Now the question to be considered is whether the prosecution materials in toto would not suggest involvement of the petitioner in this crime, in the matter of commission of offences under Section 409 read with Section 120B of IPC as well as under Sections 7 , 8 and 12 of the PC Act. The relevant portion of statement of witness No.6 is referred in this regard and the same is as under; "On being asked about identification of Customs officials through CCTV footage namely Shri. Jose.K.M., the then Supdt of Customs, Calicut International Airport, Shri.E. Ganapathy Potty, the then Supdt of Customs, Calicut International Airport, Shri Yaser Arafath K, the then Inspector Customs, Calicut International Airport, Shri Satyamendra Singh, the then Supdt. Customs, Calicut International Airport, Shri. Naresh Gulia, the then Inspector Customs, Calicut International Airport, Shri. Sudhir Kumar, the then Inspector Customs, Calicut International Airport, Ms. Minimol V C, the then Inspector Customs, Calicut International Airport, Shri, Sanjeev Kumar, Inspector Customs, Calicut International Airport, Shri. Ramendra Singh, the then Inspector Customs, Calicut International Airport, Shri Yogesh, the then Inspector Customs, Calicut International Airport, Mrs. Asha S, the then Supdt Customs, Calicut International Airport, Shri. Ashokan. C, the then Havaldar Customs, Calicut International Airport Shri. Francis P M, the then Havaldar Customs, Calicut International Airport and Shri Mani K, Contingent worker, Calicut International Airport, I state that I can identify all the above officials face-to- face and through CCTV footage, as I had worked with them for a period of about three years and familiar with them in the airport and other offices. On being shown the CCTV footage, I can identify movement of officials with passengers, approximate timings, activity, etc., as shown below. On being shown the CCTV footage, I can identify movement of officials with passengers, approximate timings, activity, etc., as shown below. On being shown CCTV camera footage bearing camera No. 276 for the date 12.01.2021, I could see that Shri. Yogesh, Inspector takes over something secretly from a passenger at about 3:55:55 Hrs in front of Customs Room and keeps the same in his pocket clandestinely. It is clear in another CCTV footage No. 300 that Shri. Yogesh, Inspector throws something to the carton box placed near re- examination scanner at 04:08:35 Hrs on 12.01.2021, from where, as per JSC proceedings, huge sum of money has been seized. The JSC proceedings to this effect has been shown to me by the IO." 11. On a perusal of the statement of Witness No.7 also similar version could be found. The same is as under; "On being shown CCTV camera footage bearing camera No. 276 for the date 12.01.2021, I could see that Shri. Yogesh, Inspector takes over something secretly from a passenger at about 3:55:55 Hrs in front of Customs Room and keeps the same in his pocket clandestinely. It is clear in another CCTV footage No. 300 that Shri. Yogesh, Inspector throws something to the carton box placed near re- examination scanner at 04:08:35 Hrs on 12.01.2021, from where, as per JSC proceedings, huge sum of money has been seized. The JSC proceedings to this effect has been shown to me by the IO." 12. The prosecution has specific case that the petitioner is also involved in the conspiracy hatched between the other accused and as part of the same, all accused together conceded illegal gratification of Rs.1,07,000/- and withheld goods worth Rs.4,24,690/- without confiscation. The specific allegation against the petitioner that he had misappropriated two boxes of DUNHILL cigarettes, King Size filter, Switzerland made were seized along with the Aadhar card as alleged in Page No.51 of the charge sheet. 13. The legal position as regards the matters to be considered while entertaining a discharge petition is well settled. That is to say, when the prosecution records, on its scrutiny, prima facie show the ingredients to commit the offence/offences or at least a strong suspicion to be discernible from prosecution records in this regard, discharge petition cannot be allowed. 13. The legal position as regards the matters to be considered while entertaining a discharge petition is well settled. That is to say, when the prosecution records, on its scrutiny, prima facie show the ingredients to commit the offence/offences or at least a strong suspicion to be discernible from prosecution records in this regard, discharge petition cannot be allowed. Similarly, in order to quash a criminal case against an accused, the Court must found that prima facie no materials to prosecute the accused by subjecting him of the ordeal of trial. 14. In this connection, the joint check proceedings marked as Ext.D2, the CCTV footages marked as Exts.D3 to D5 also have been placed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor to show the gravity of the offences and the manner in which the petitioner has involved in this crime. 15. On perusal of the prosecution records highlighted and discussed, there are prima facie materials to show the involvement of the petitioner in this crime including the recovery of 9 cartons of foreign cigarettes from his bag containing his ID card. This would show the allegations, prima facie. In such situation, the observation of the learned Special Judge that there was no specific allegation of receipt of bribe by the accused No.4 is found to be premature and the said finding is recorded as innocent. To the contrary, the prosecution materials in toto would show specific allegation as could be seen from the statements of the witnesses, supported by Exts.D2 to D5, prima facie. In such a case, plea of discharge or quashment of the proceedings would not succeed. Therefore, the order disallowing discharge doesn't require any interference and is confirmed. So also the quashment of proceedings must fail. In the result, both petitions found to be bereft of merits and are dismissed.