Oral Statements Alone Can’t Support Bribery Charges Against Ministers or Senior Officials: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that bribery allegations against ministers or high-ranking public officials cannot rest solely on oral statements and must be carefully scrutinized before prosecution.
The ruling came in connection with three criminal revision petitions filed by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) of Kerala. The Bureau had challenged the earlier discharge of former minister Adoor Prakash, his private secretary V. Raju, and others in a case involving the alleged granting of a wholesale ration-depot licence in exchange for a bribe.
The VACB accused the respondents of demanding ₹30 lakh for issuing the licence in the Omassery area of Kozhikode, booking them under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. However, in 2021, the Special Court for Vigilance Cases had discharged all accused, finding that there was no sufficient ground to proceed.
When the matter reached the High Court, Justice A. Badharudeen observed that oral testimony alone cannot justify corruption charges against individuals holding high office, since the risk of false implication due to personal enmity or political rivalry cannot be ruled out. He emphasized that allegations arising only after an individual’s personal objectives are denied may appear retaliatory unless backed by strong supporting evidence.
The judge further clarified that while courts should not conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence at the pre-trial stage, they are entitled to examine the materials on record to determine whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case.
In this instance, the court noted that the licence application had been rejected by the District Collector for valid administrative reasons and that no immediate complaint had been lodged at the time of the alleged demand. As such, the court found that the case rested on suspicion rather than proof.
The High Court therefore dismissed the Vigilance Bureau’s revision petitions and upheld the discharge of the accused.
