The High Court of Kerala has reaffirmed that the mere reliance on extra-judicial confessions or statements of co-accused, even if recorded by a gazetted officer under the Customs Act, cannot form the sole basis for framing charges against an accused. This judgment clarifies the threshold for discharge applications under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and reinforces the principle that prima facie evidence must transcend uncorroborated testimonies.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arises from a large-scale corruption scandal at Calicut International Airport, where multiple customs officials and passengers were accused of accepting bribes to release dutiable goods without imposing customs duties or penalties. The revision petitioner, Yaser Arafat K, was arrayed as Accused No.3 and alleged to have received bribes totaling Rs.60,000 from three passengers - Accused Nos. 22, 25, and 26 - for facilitating the release of gold ornaments and baggage.
Procedural History
- January 2021: Joint Surprise Check conducted at Calicut Airport; allegations of bribery emerge.
- 2022: CBI files charge sheet under Section 120B r/w 409 IPC and Sections 7, 8, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018.
- November 2022: Accused Nos. 22 and 25 granted pardon and elevated to approvers under Section 306 CrPC.
- December 2025: Special Sessions Court dismisses discharge petition of Accused No.3, relying on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
- February 2026: Revision petition filed before the Kerala High Court under Sections 438 and 442 BNSS.
Relief Sought
The revision petitioner sought discharge on grounds that the prosecution’s case rested solely on uncorroborated statements of co-accused and CCTV footage that did not capture any transaction. He argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish even a prima facie case warranting trial.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, when made by co-accused and later converted into approvers’ evidence, can alone sustain the framing of charges under Section 120B r/w 409 IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, in the absence of independent corroboration.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that:
- The statements of Accused Nos. 22, 25, and 26 were extra-judicial confessions and could not be the sole basis for charge framing.
- The Kerala High Court’s own precedent in Assistant Commissioner Customs v Edwin Andrew Minihan and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh held that such statements require corroboration.
- The prosecution admitted there was no CCTV coverage in the customs room, rendering visual evidence useless.
- The proceedings against similarly situated accused (Nos. 19, 20, 23, 24, 27) had been quashed on identical grounds.
For the Respondent/State
The Special Public Prosecutor argued that:
- The statements under Section 108 Customs Act are admissible as substantive evidence under Section 24 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
- Accused Nos. 22 and 25 are now approvers, and their testimony carries probative value.
- The Special Judge correctly applied the low threshold for discharge: only a prima facie suspicion need exist to proceed to trial.
- The Court cannot conduct a mini-trial at the discharge stage and must give the prosecution the benefit of all inferences.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of Section 108 statements under the Customs Act and their evidentiary weight in criminal proceedings. It acknowledged that while such statements are not rendered inadmissible by Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, they are inherently weak and require corroboration to be relied upon.
"Confession of a co-accused is weak evidence and that the guilt of an accused cannot be established by placing reliance solely on the confession of a co-accused."
The Court emphasized that the status of Accused Nos. 22 and 25 as approvers did not automatically elevate their statements to conclusive proof. The probative value of approvers’ testimony remains subject to judicial scrutiny during trial, and at the discharge stage, the court must assess whether the material, even if accepted at face value, creates a strong suspicion of guilt.
The Court distinguished the present case from those of the quashed accused (Nos. 19 - 27), noting that those accused were mere passengers with no official role, whereas the revision petitioner was a public servant allegedly receiving bribes. However, the Court found no independent evidence - such as recovered currency, witness testimony, or digital records - linking the petitioner to the alleged transactions.
The Court held that while approvers’ evidence is admissible, its reliability cannot be presumed at the discharge stage. The Special Judge erred in treating the approvers’ statements as sufficient without evaluating whether they were corroborated by any other material. The absence of recovered proceeds, independent witnesses, or CCTV footage rendered the case speculative.
The Verdict
The revision petition was dismissed. The Court held that the prosecution’s case, though weak, met the minimal threshold of prima facie suspicion required to proceed to trial under Section 438 BNSS. The Court affirmed that the Special Judge did not err in refusing discharge, but clarified that the evidentiary weight of approvers’ statements and extra-judicial confessions must be rigorously tested during trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Corroboration Is Mandatory for Extra-Judicial Confessions
- Practitioners must now insist on independent corroboration before relying on Section 108 Customs Act statements to oppose discharge.
- Courts must not treat such statements as conclusive even if recorded by gazetted officers.
- In corruption cases, absence of recovered money or digital evidence weakens the prosecution’s prima facie case.
Approver Testimony Does Not Automatically Sustain Charges
- The status of an approver does not eliminate the need for corroboration at the discharge stage.
- Defense counsel should challenge discharge applications by highlighting gaps in corroboration, even when approvers are involved.
- Prosecutors must proactively identify and preserve corroborative evidence before filing charge sheets.
Discharge Standard Is Not a Mini-Trial, But Not a Rubber Stamp
- Courts must avoid conducting a full evidentiary analysis, but cannot ignore glaring inconsistencies.
- If the only evidence is uncorroborated confessions, discharge may still be warranted if the material is inherently unreliable.
- This judgment reinforces that prima facie suspicion must be grounded in credible, not speculative, material.
