New Delhi: The Supreme Court has acquitted former Divisional Security Commissioner of the Railway Protection Force (RPF), Palakkad, Bharat Raj Meena, in two corruption cases investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), holding that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.
A bench comprising Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Justice Dipankar Datta allowed Criminal Appeal Nos. 4732-4733 of 2024 and set aside the judgments of the Kerala High Court dated May 24, 2024, as well as the appellant’s conviction by the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam, in C.C. Nos. 2 of 2014 and 3 of 2015.
The cases arose from an FIR registered in 2005 concerning allegations that Meena, while heading the Palakkad Division of the RPF, operated a system through which illegal gratification was allegedly collected from personnel seeking transfers and favourable postings.
According to the prosecution, payments were allegedly routed through two RPF personnel, Constable Anantha Narayanan and Head Constable Abdul Gafoor, who acted as intermediaries. They allegedly represented to other RPF personnel that they had access to the appellant and could arrange favourable transfers or postings in return for money.
The prosecution relied upon twelve alleged transactions involving illegal gratification. The appeals before the Supreme Court, however, concerned the surviving convictions relating to complainant Nandakumar and another transaction involving complainant Gopi Kumar. The High Court had already acquitted the appellant in respect of two other alleged transactions.
Supreme Court Examines Proof of Demand and Acceptance
The Supreme Court examined the settled principles governing corruption prosecutions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, particularly the requirement to establish demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
The Court referred to the decisions in C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, and the Constitution Bench judgment in Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi).
The Court reiterated that recovery of tainted currency by itself is not sufficient to establish the offence. The prosecution must first prove the foundational facts showing that the accused demanded and accepted the money as illegal gratification.
Only after those foundational facts are established can the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act come into operation.
Evidence of Intermediary Found Insufficient
While examining the evidence transaction-wise, the Supreme Court found several deficiencies in the prosecution case.
Anantha Narayanan, who had acted as an intermediary and subsequently became an approver, did not provide sufficiently clear evidence establishing that the appellant had demanded or accepted the alleged bribes through him.
The Court also found that his testimony required independent corroboration, which was substantially absent. Material contradictions were noticed between the version given by the approver and the evidence of the official trap witnesses.
In relation to the transaction involving complainant Gopi Kumar, the Court further noted that a prosecution witness relied upon for corroboration had himself been acquitted at the trial stage. This, according to the Court, weakened the reliability of the prosecution’s evidentiary chain.
Benefit of Reasonable Doubt Goes to Accused
The Supreme Court held that the deficiencies in the evidence were not merely technical shortcomings. Rather, they created a genuine and continuing doubt regarding the prosecution’s allegations.
The Court observed:
“The charge against the appellant could not be said to have been proved with certain element of definitiveness as contemplated under the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
The Court also considered the appellant’s statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which he had alleged that the prosecution was the result of a conspiracy involving a rival officer who was subsequently posted to his position.
However, in view of its conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges on the evidence available, the Court found it unnecessary to examine that defence in detail.
Challenge to Sanction Also Left Open
The appellant had separately challenged the validity of the sanction for prosecution. The Supreme Court, however, did not find it necessary to decide that issue because the prosecution had already failed on the substantive question of proving demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
Consequently, both criminal appeals were allowed. The appellant was acquitted of all charges in both cases, his bail bonds were ordered to stand discharged, and any fine amount deposited by him was directed to be refunded.
The judgment once again underscores that in prosecutions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution cannot secure a conviction merely on the basis of recovery of money. Proof of demand and acceptance remains central to establishing criminal liability, and where the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt about these foundational elements, the accused is entitled to acquittal.
Case Title: Bharat Raj Meena v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Criminal Appeal Nos.: 4732-4733 of 2024
Citation: 2026 INSC 999
