Muthukumar is said to be the kingpin involved in this crime and is absconding. Ashoo appears to be a victim of Muthukumar’s plot. The standard of proof in a departmental proceeding, being based on preponderance of probability, is somewhat lower than the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding where a case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In case of exoneration on merits, where allegations are found to be not sustainable at all and the person is held innocent, a criminal prosecution on same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue [Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal, (2011) 3 SCC 581]. On a reading of the detailed Central Vigilance Commission Report, Ashoo should have been exonerated. The chances of conviction in a criminal trial involving same facts appear to be bleak. Ashoo is discharged.

– Hon’ble Justice R.F. Nariman, Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI, [Criminal Appeal No. 575 of 2020].

_____

It is trite, mere absconding by itself does not constitute a guilty mind as even an innocent man may feel panicky and may seek to evade as an instinct of self-preservation. But, abscondence is certainly a relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence and is a conduct under Section 8 of The Evidence Act, 1872, which points to his guilty mind. The needle of suspicion gets strengthened [Matru v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1971) 2 SCC 75].

– Hon’ble Justice N.K. Singh, Chetan v. State of Karnataka, [Criminal Appeal No. 1568 of 2013] decided on 30.05.2025.