The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No. 266 of 2012 (Arising out of the judgment of conviction dated 11th of April, 2012 passed by Shri Niranjan Sahu, Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhawanipatna, District–Kalahandi in G.R. (Vig.) Case No. 23 of 2007/T.R. No. 27 of 2011, for the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) Chandramani Mahar …. Petitioner State of Orissa (Vig) -versus- …. Mr. H. K. Mund, Advocate Opp. Parties Mr. M. S. Rizvi, Standing Counsel (Vig.) CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Date of Judgment: 26.08.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, J. 1. The present Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.04.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhawanipatna, District-Kalahandi in G.R. (Vig.) Case No.23 of 2007 corresponding to T.R. Case No.27 of 2011, whereby the Appellant was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of ₹1,500/–, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 7 of the Act; and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and six months and to pay a fine of ₹2,500/–, in default to CRLA No.266 of 2012 Page 1 of 19 undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the Appellant, who was working as a Revenue Inspector in the Tahasil Office, Bhawanipatna, was dealing with OLR Case No.12 of 2005, pending in the name of the Complainant. It was alleged that on 05.07.2007, the Appellant demanded a sum of ₹400/- from the Complainant as illegal gratification for processing and issuing necessary orders in connection with the said OLR case. The Complainant, being unwilling to pay the bribe, approached the Vigilance Police and lodged a written report, whereupon a trap was organized. As per the trap arrangement, the Complainant tendered the tainted currency notes of ₹400/- to the Appellant in his office, which the Appellant allegedly accepted and kept inside the case record. Immediately thereafter, the Vigilance team entered, conducted hand-wash and file-wash tests, which turned pink, and seized the tainted notes from the possession of the accused. 3. In course of the investigation, the Vigilance Police seized the relevant documents, prepared the pre-trap and post-trap memoranda, recorded the statements of witnesses, obtained sanction for prosecution from the competent authority, and forwarded the
Legal Reasoning
chemical examination report which confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein in the hand-wash and file-wash solutions. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the Appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the CRLA No.266 of 2012 Page 2 of 19 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, leading to his trial before the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhawanipatna. 4. The prosecution examined eight witnesses in support of its case. P.W.1, the in-charge Tahasildar, proved that the OLR case record was pending with the accused at the relevant time. P.W.2 was the scribe of the written complaint lodged before the Vigilance Police. P.W.3, the Additional District Magistrate, deposed to having granted sanction for prosecution of the accused. P.W.4, the independent witness to the trap, corroborated the pre-trap and post- trap proceedings and stated that the accused had demanded and accepted ₹400/- from the Complainant, which was recovered from the OLR case record maintained by him. P.W.5, the Trap Laying Officer, supported the version of P.W.4 and proved the seizure, recovery, and preparation of memoranda. P.W.6, another independent official witness, also corroborated the recovery of tainted notes and the hand-wash turning pink. P.W.7, the Complainant, however, resiled from his earlier statement and did not support the prosecution on the aspect of demand, though he admitted to having kept the money in the file. P.W.8, the Investigating Officer, spoke about the completion of investigation, seizure of documents, receipt of sanction order, and submission of charge-sheet. 5.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. H. K. Mund, learned counsel for the Appellant, submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the foundational facts of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which are sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He urged that the Complainant (P.W.7) clearly deposed before the court that the Appellant never CRLA No.266 of 2012 Page 3 of 19 demanded any bribe and that he himself had kept the tainted money in the file in the absence of the Appellant. Thus, the very substratum of the prosecution case is destroyed. Mr. Mund further argued that reliance placed by the prosecution on P.W.4, the so-called shadow witness, is misplaced. P.W.4 admitted in cross-examination that he had acted as a Vigilance witness in three to four cases earlier, thereby showing that he is a “stock witness” and not an independent person. His testimony is also contradicted by P.W.7 and is unsupported by any independent corroboration. The alleged overhearing from the verandah is highly doubtful. In such circumstances, mere recovery of money from the file is insufficient to bring home guilt, as held in State of Kerala Vs. C.P. Rao1 and K. Shanthamma Vs. State of Telangana2. Learned counsel further submitted that the phenolphthalein test on the Appellant’s hand wash was negative, which itself shows that the Appellant never accepted the money. The presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act cannot be invoked in the absence of proof of demand, as reiterated in the Constitution Bench decision of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)3. On the issue of sanction, it was urged that P.W.3, who was only in routine charge as ADM, had no authority to remove the Appellant from service and therefore was incompetent to grant sanction. The sanction being invalid, the cognizance itself stands vitiated. This amounts to a failure of justice as contemplated under Section 19(3) of the Act, rendering the trial illegal. Placing reliance on Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi),