The judgment emphasizes the principle that an order of acquittal should not be easily interfered with unless compelling reasons exist, such as the ignoring of admissible evidence or the presence of substantial reasons for re-appreciation of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Indrajit Mahanty, J. - This application u/s 378(4) Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed seeking leave by the prosecution to challenge an order of acquittal dated 29.8.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur in T.R. Case No. 27 of 1997.

2. The prosecution case in short is that one Satish Kumar Mohapatra, the Proprietor of M/s. Life Pharmaceuticals, Rourkela had approached the accused (Opp. Party), who was then working as a Drugs Inspector and requested him to sign the Treasury Challan for renewal of his Drugs licence for the years 1996-1997. It has been alleged that the accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 2,000/- from the complainant for the said purpose, to which, the said Satish Kumar Mohapatra expressed his inability to pay the said amount and pursuant to which, the accused refused to sign the challans, lastly demanding Rs. 1500/-. It further appears that on 25.3.1996, again the complainant approached the accused for signing the challans, but this time, though the accused signed Anr. challan for issue of Inspection Book, but refused to sign the challan for his 'licence renewal' without taking Rs. 1000/-. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the complainant reporter the matter to the Superintendent of Police (Vig.), Sambalpur, on the basis of which a Vigilance case was registered and a trap was arranged on 26.3.1996.

On execution of such trap, T.R. Case No. 27 of 1997 was registered in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur and by the judgment dated 29.8.2000, the learned Special Judge came to hold that the accused was not guilty of the charge alleged against him and acquitted the accused u/s 248(1) Code of Criminal Procedure The said judgment of acquittal is the subject matter of the present leave petition.

3. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Vigilance Department contended that the impugned order of acquittal was illegal, contrary to law and the evidence on record and the trial Court has committed an error in not considering the evidence of P.W. 1, 2 and 3 who supported the case of the prosecution. Apart from the above, Mr. Mohapatra contended that the trial Court had committed an error in holding that the Magistrate/witness brought out the money from under the files 'on the direction of the Vigilance Inspector' as well as came to a wrong finding in holding that the accused was temporarily absent from the office room during which the complainant might have placed the bribe money in the heaps of file on the table. But learned Counsel for the State submits that no where in the evidence of the prosecution it is stated that the accused temporarily absent from his seat.

4. Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the Opp. Party, on the other hand, contended that it is well settled in law that an order of acquittal should not be interfered with lightly because of the presumption of innocence of accused is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. He submits that it is only in a case where "admissible evidence is ignored", a duty is cast on the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence or if there are "compelling and substantial reasons" for doing so. In support of this contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Main Pal and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Others. Mr. Das further asserts that since in the instant case the finding of the trial Court is neither based on irrelevant or inadmissible evidence nor the Court below has ignored convincing and material evidence nor there any compelling reasons for interference. In support of the aforesaid principles, learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the State through SPE and CBI, AP Vs. M. Krishna Mohan and Another. Learned Counsel for the Opp. Party further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, since P.Ws. 1 and 3 have been declared hostile, except the statement of the complainant (P.W.2),