The Benefit of the Doubt: How a Hostile Witness Led to an Acquittal in a Corruption Case.
13-August-2025
Acquittal >> Criminal Law
The Supreme Court recently in Mini v/s CBI/SPE Cochin overturned the conviction of a deceased clerk from a passport office, who had been found guilty of bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The original case involved a complaint by a man (PW1) who claimed the clerk, Mohanachandran N.K., demanded a bribe of Rs. 200 to expedite a passport application. The prosecution alleged that during a sting operation, the clerk accepted Rs. 1,200, which included the lawful passport fee of Rs. 1,000 and the alleged bribe of Rs. 200.
However, during the trial, the complainant (PW1) became a hostile witness, stating that he had been misled by a CBI official into believing the clerk was corrupt. The clerk, in his defense, claimed he only accepted the Rs. 1,000 passport fee and was unaware that two extra Rs. 100 notes had been placed between the Rs. 500 notes.
Despite the complainant's statement, the lower courts had convicted the clerk, relying on the fact that tainted money was recovered from him. The Supreme Court, however, found this reasoning flawed. It emphasized that a conviction for bribery requires proven demand, not just the recovery of money. The Court noted that since the complainant did not support the demand, and the clerk's explanation for the extra money was plausible, a reasonable doubt existed.
Ultimately, the Court ruled that the lower courts failed to properly consider the clerk's defense and the unreliability of the complainant's testimony. As a result, the Supreme Court acquitted the deceased clerk, overturning the High Court's judgment.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988