Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 421 (ORI)

STATE OF ORISSA v. SAROJ KUMAR SINHA

2009-05-18

I.MAHANTY

body2009
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. 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. 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), there is no other corroborativetevidence against the accused and since except the decoy (P.W.2), none has whispered about any demand of bribe and decoy being an accomplice, such evidence led by him cannot be accepted without corroboration. In support of such submission, Mr. Das has relied upon the decisions of the Suprerne Court in the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra, and in the case of Ganapathi Sanya Naik Vs. State of Karnataka, . 5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both the parties, in so far as the principles of law advanced by the learned Counsel for the O.P. are concerned, there appears to be no conflict. In the present set of circumstances, it is the onerous responsibility in the administration of justice in criminal cases, where an order of acquittal has been passed, the same should not be easily interfered with unless a case is made out, either to the effect that admissible evidence has been ignored or there exists compelling or substantial reason for re-appreciation of evidence. 6. In the case at hand, it becomes necessary to consider the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Vigilance Department in support of the prayer seeking leave to appeal. The first contention raised by him is that the trial Court has committed error in holding that the Magistrate/witness brought out the money from under the files on the direction of the Vigilance Inspector. In this regard, reliance was placed on the evidence of P.W.1 (hostile witness) whereby although said P.W.1 has stated that when the decoy (P.W.2) knocked at the door of the accused, the accused opened the door and asked him to come inside and thereafter, went inside the house. This evidence of a hostile witness does not support the case of the prosecution. This evidence of a hostile witness does not support the case of the prosecution. Apart from the above, it is clear from the impugned judgment that P.W.2 (decoy) in his evidence has stated that "one of the vigilance officers, namely, Pradhan, brought out the tainted money and the vigilance official Shri Pradhan and Shri Patnaik took the hand wash of the accused Sinha in the chemical solution and the colour of the solution changed to pink." On a conjoint reading of the evidence of the said P.Ws., it is clear that while the accused is stated to have allowed P.W.2 (decoy) to enter into the house and asked him to sit, thereafter, the accused went inside the house. Therefore, the assertion that no such evidence exists to support such a finding, is found to be baseless. Apart from the above, the evidence of P.W.2 (decoy) indicates that it is the vigilance official who brought out money from under the file and the said vigilance officials Shri Pradhan and Shri Patnaik also took the hand wash of the accused in chemical solution. From the above, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the persons who had handed over tainted notes, had also taken the hand wash in chemical solution and therefore, the possibility of transmission of chemicals from their hand to the hand of the accused, cannot be ruled out. I find no reason whatsoever to differ from the views expressed by the trial Court in that regard. 7. In so far as the second contention of the learned Counsel for the Vigilance Department is concerned, the contention that the accused was temporarily absent from the office room during which the complainant may have placed the bribe money under the heaps of file on his table, is not supported by any evidence of the prosecution, similarly has no merit, since for the reasons recorded herein above, P.Ws. 1 and 3 who turned hostile, in their evidence conceded the fact that decoy P.W.2 had been led to his house and the accused had gone into his residence and therefore, the possibility that was noted by the trial Court, that the tainted money could have been placed under the heaps of the files during the absence of the accused from his residential office, cannot be ruled out. 8. 8. Another aspect of this case which requires to be recorded is that although the trap was conducted on 26.3.1996, the challan (Ext-4), the subject matter for the demand of bribe, bears the date 25.3.1996 under the signature of the accused. The prosecution has clearly failed to establish as to how the challan in question had been signed prior to the date of trap. There has been neither any explanation nor any suggestion by the prosecution to any of the witnesses of the possibility of the challan being antedated. Therefore, the very motive or reason for the complainant to file the complaint does not exist on recording the present case. Even the 'preparation report' made prior to the trap does not disclose whether the challan had not been signed by the accused as on the date of the challan. 9. On consideration of the submissions recorded as well as the case laws relied upon by the learned Counsel as noted herein above, I am of the considered view that the findings of the trial Court are neither illegal, erroneous nor it can be taken that the same are outcome of non-consideration of material evidence or based on irrelevant or inadmissible evidence. Accordingly, the leave sought for in the present case is rejected. Final Result : Dismissed