Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. Sahoo, J.
State Of Odisha - Appellant
Versus
Pradeep Kumar Dash - Respondent
CRLLP No. 163 of 2017
Decided On : 12-11-2021
Corruption - Acquittal - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d), 7)
Fact of the Case:
The accused was acquitted of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for accepting bribe money. The prosecution alleged that the accused accepted bribe money for processing a bill, and the trap was successful with the recovery of tainted notes from the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the explanation offered by the accused regarding the possession of tainted money appeared reasonable, and the defense established its case by preponderance of probabilities. The court held the accused not guilty based on the evidence and the defense's rebuttal of the presumption under section 20 of the 1988 Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the demand and acceptance of the bribe money, the credibility of witnesses, and the burden of proof under the 1988 Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under section 20 of the 1988 Act by bringing evidence to establish with reasonable probability that the money was accepted by him other than as illegal gratification. The court also highlighted the need for corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the CRLLP petition, refusing to grant leave to the State of Orissa (Vigilance) to prefer any appeal against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
JUDGMENT
S. K. Sahoo, J. - Heard Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department and Mr. Trilochan Nanda, learned counsel for the opposite party.
2. This leave petition under section 378(1)(3) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State of Odisha (Vigilance) seeking for eave to file an appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 05.04.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bolangir in C.T.R. No.14/62 of 2003-2007 in acquitting the opposite party Pradeep Kumar Dash of the charges under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) and section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter 1988 Act').
3. The opposite party faced trial for the aforesaid offences on the accusation that he accepted bribe money of Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred) from the informant Bhaskar Patra (P.W.3) for preparation of his G.P.F. bill. It is the case of the informant that he was working as a Junior Engineer in the office of the S.D.O., Bolangir, Hydrometer Sub-Division under Executive Engineer, Bolangir Investigation Division and applied for G.P.F. of Rs.97,000/- (rupees ninety seven thousand) for treatment of his mother and it was sanctioned by the S.E., Northern Investigation Circle, Burla on 11.11.2002 and communicated to the Executive Engineer, Bolangir Investigation Division, but the same was not drawn and though his periodical increment was due from 01.10.2002, the same was also not passed. The opposite party was working Senior Clerk in the office and was dealing with the matter and he demanded Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred) for the said purpose. P.W.3 agreed to pay he amount against his will and ultimately he reported the matter before the Vigilance.
The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Sambalpur on receipt of the written report, directed the Officer in-charge, Vigilance police station, Sambalpur to register the case and to take up investigation and to lay the trap and then to hand over the charge of investigation to D.S.P., Vigilance, Bolangir. After the trap was laid and the formalities of preparation for laying the trap was over, they proceeded to the office of the opposite party and it is the prosecution case that the trap was successful and tainted note was recovered from the possession of the opposite party which he had kept in his pocket after accepting the same from the informant and the hand wash of the opposite party taken in sodium carbonate solution turned pink. Hand wash in sample bottles were collected and sealed which was sent for chemical analysis. On completion of investigation, sanction order to prosecute the opposite party was obtained and charge sheet was submitted against the opposite party.
4. During course of trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses. P.W.1 is a witness to the preparation inside the Vigilance Office and also at the spot but he did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile, P.W.2 is the shadow witness, who has also not supported the prosecution case and eclared hostile by the prosecution, P.W.3 is the decoy and he is also the informant, P.W.4 is the T.L.O. and P.W.5 is the nvestigating Officer.
The prosecution exhibited seventeen numbers of documents. Exts.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the signatures of P.W.1 in a sheet of paper, Ext.6 is the sheet of paper containing number of notes, Ext.7 is the preparation report, Ext.8 is the detection report, Ext.9 is the signature of P.W.2 on the seizure list (Ext.3/1), Ext.10 is the F.I.R., Ext.11 is the zimanama, Ext.12 is the chemical examination report, Ext.13 is the sanction order of G.P.F., Ext.14 is the misc. acquittance roll, Ext.15 is the sanction order, Ext.16 is the statement of P.W.2 recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and Ext.17 is the statement of P.W.1 recorded under ection 161 Cr.P.C.
The prosecution proved eight material objects. M.O.I is the brass seal, M.O.II and M.O.III are the sample bottles, M.O.IV is the bottle containing right hand wash of the opposite party, M.O.V is the bottle contain
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
