The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.10 of 2014 Arising out of the Judgment and order dated 07.12.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bolangir in C.T.R. No.44/26 of 1998-2007. State of Odisha …. Petitioner -versus- 1.Biranchi Prasad Misra 2.Sankirtan Pradhan (since dead) 3. Govinda Kuanr 4.Janardan Swain 5. Premraj Dharua (since dead) …. Opp. Parties Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Mode : For Petitioner : Mr.Sangram Das, Standing Counsel (Vigilance) For Opp. Parties : Ms.Saubhagyalaxmi Patnaik, Adv. on behalf of Mr.Amitav Tripathy, Adv. (for O.P.1) Mr.Subham Das, Adv. on behalf of Mr.S.K.Dash, Adv. (for O.Ps.3 and 4) CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO .…………………………………………………………………………………… Date of Judgment : 30.05.2025 ……………………………………………………………………………………. Savitri Ratho, J. In this CRLLP, the petitioner-State has prayed for the following relief: CRLLP No.10 of 2014 Page 1 of 21 “The petitioner above named, therefore prays that this application may kindly be allowed leave to prefer appeal against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal may kindly be granted, the record of the lower court may kindly be called for and the appeal may kindly be admitted, the judgment and order of acquittal of the lower court may kindly be set aside and accused be convicted U/s. 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (c) P.C. Act 1988 and 409, 467, 471, 477-A, 34 of I.P.C. and in the event of grant of leave, this application may kindly be treated as GCRLA.” PROSECUTION CASE 2. The prosecution case in brief is that during the period from September, 1995 to March, 1996 Silvi culture operation was undertaken in Sikerpeta Reserve Forest under Gudvela Section of Bolangir Forest Range. The work was being executed by Forester Biranchi Prasad Mishra under the supervision of Forest Range officer Maheswar Pattanayak. The Forest Guards, namely, Premraj Dharua, Govinda Kuanr. Janardan Swain and Sankirtan pradhan used to engage labourers for cutting high stumps, cleaning sides, packing stone on the down side and preparing half moon trench on upside etc. They used to pay daily wage of Rs.25/- per day to
Legal Reasoning
each labourer. P.W. 15, Inspector of Vigilance, Bolangir Sri Kunjabihari Pani on receipt of information from reliable source about misappropriation of government money while executing the silvi culture operation made CRLLP No.10 of 2014 Page 2 of 21 preliminary enquiry and informed the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Sambalpur who treated it as FIR and directed Sri Pani to take up investigation. The FIR is marked as Ext.258. 3. During course of investigation, P.W.15 , seized the cash book of Range officer, Bolangir in three volumes, charge list of taking over charge by Forest Range M.Pattnaik and handing over charge by Forest Ranger P.N.Rout, charge list of taking over and handing over by Forester Biranchi Prasad Mishra (accused) of Gudvela section, charge list of Dhanpur beat handed over by Forest Guard G.Kuanr (accused), charge list of Jamut beat handed over by Forest Guard J.Swain (accused), tour diary of forest ranger for the period 2/96 and 3/96, tour diary of Forest Ranger M.Pattanayak for the period commencing from September, 1995 to 15.03.1996, tour diary of forester B.P.Mishra for the period September, 1995 to March, 1996 except February, 1996, Forest advance requisition of Forest Ranger, Bolangir, forest advance receipts given by the Forester B.P.Mishra to Range Officer, Bolangir in Form No.51, tour diary of D.F.O. and A.C.F., Bolangir on production of Ashok Kumar Parida (P.W.8) and prepared seizure list marked Ext. 294. PROSECUTION WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS 4. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses. P.W.1-Kamal Behera, P.W.2-Budu Bagarty, P.W.3-Radhakanta Padhan, P.W.4-Khetri Bhoi, CRLLP No.10 of 2014 Page 3 of 21 P.W.7-Bhisma Pradhan, P.W.9-Lalita Rana, P.W.10-Nabin Deheria, P.W.13-Bhojraj Puta and P.W.14-Ujal Bhoi are labourers which were engaged in silvi culture operation by the accused persons. P.W.5-Maheswar Pattnaik is the Range Officer, P.W.6-R.L. Raju is the Jr. Accountant of the office of D.F.O., Bolangir, P.W.8-Ashoka Kumar Panda is the Senior Clerk in the office of D.F.O., Bolangir who had produced documents before Vigilance Police, P.W.11-Gorekha Pradhan and P.W.12-Chandra Sekhar Danta are the witnesses to finger prints collection, P.W.5-Maheswar Pattnaik is the informant-cum-I.O. and P.W.16-Antaryami Mohapatra is the Finger Print Expert. The defence examined one witness, D.W.1-Bipin Bihari Behera is the Assistant Conservator of Forest. The depositions of only P.Ws. 5 and 16 have been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. P.W.5 has stated that he was Forest Range Officer, Bolangir from 1994 to 1996 and that in the year 1995 bamboo silvi culture operation was being carried on. The D.F.O. used to place fund in shape of cheque in the name of Range Officer by way of advance. When the cheque is received, acknowledgment thereof is obtained in Form No. 51 showing issue of cheque as Forest advance requisition. He used to encash the cheque and give the cash to different Foresters of different section for silvi culture CRLLP No.10 of 2014 Page 4 of 21 operation. It is stated by him that Gudvela Forest section was under Bolangir Forest Range and accused Biranchi Prasad Mishra was Forester of that section. He used to give forest advance to accused Sri Mishra and obtained acknowledgment in Form No.51 from Sri Mishra as a token of advance. Ext.1 to Ext. 174 are forest advance vouchers granted by accused Biranchi Prasad Mishra, each voucher worth of Rs.1,000/-. The above advance was given during September, 1995 to January, 1996. Accused Biranchi Prasad Mishra had put his signature as token of receipt and his signatures are marked as Ext. 1/1 to Ext. 174/1. He (P.W.5) has also given signatures with seal showing disbursement of amount and his Signatures are marked as Ext. 1/2 to Ext. 174/2. It transpires from his evidence that labourers were engaged by the Forest Guard who maintains muster roll of labourers. The labourer engaged on each working days are mentioned in the muster roll to facilitate the payment of wages to the labourers. The Forest Guard gives endorsement in the muster roll showing number of labourer engaged and number of days of engagement and nature of work done by them on the muster roll. Thereafter the muster roll with such endorsement is produced before the Forester by the Forest Guard. After verification of the muster roll, the Forester used to make payment to the labourers in presence of Forest Guard. After the payment was made, acknowledgment of payment is obtained in the muster roll from each CRLLP No.10 of 2014 Page 5 of 21 labourer. The Forester used to give his endorsement regarding his payment made to labourers and the muster roll is submitted to the Range Officer to incorporate the same in the monthly account of the Range. After receipt of the muster roll, he (P.W.5) used to treat the same as Voucher for the purpose of adjustment of the advance given to the Forester. He also reflect this fact of adjustment of advance in the Cash Book of the Range Office and submit the said muster roll with vouchers in Form No. 51 with seal and signature to D.F.O. During relevant period, accused Govinda Kuanr was Forest Guard of Dhanpur beat Ext. 175 to Ext.188 are the muster roll prepared by accused Sri Kuanr. The endorsement made by him (P.W.5) in the muster roll i.e. Ext. 175 to Ext. 188 that the amount shown therein was disbursed through the Forester and Ext. 175/1 to Ext. 188/1 are his (P.W.5) endorsement with signature. The Forest Guard accused Govinda Kuanr had also given endorsement and signature showing that on his identification, the Forester made payment to the labourers engaged by him in the work. Ext. 175/2 to Ext 188/2 are the endorsement and signature of accused Kuanr. Accused Biranchi Prasad Mishra, Forester, Gudvela section had also given his endorsement to the effect that he had paid the amount to the persons named in the muster roll and obtained their signature/LT.I. who were engaged in the work with his signature marked as Ext. 175/3 to Ext 188/3. CRLLP No.10 of 2014 Page 6 of 21 It is stated by him (P.W.5) in para 7 of his examination-in-chief that accused Janardan Swain was Forest Guard, Jamut Beat. Ext. 189 to Ext. 198 are the muster rolls prepared by accused Swain maintained by him. He had submitted the said muster roll to Forester accused Biranchi Prasad Mishra who handed over to him (P.W.5). He (P.W.5) had given his endorsement and signature in the said muster roll as payment to the labourers were made through the Forester and treated the same as Vouchers and reflected in the Range Office cash book putting voucher numbers. Ext. 189/1 to Ext. 198/1 are his (P.W.5) endorsement with signatures. Forest Guard Sri Swain had also given endorsement that he had actually engaged labourers and payment was made on his identification by the Forester to the labourers and obtained their L.T.I./signature. Ext. 189/2 to Ext. 198/2 are the endorsement and signature. Ext. 189/3 to Ext. 198/3 are endorsements and signatures of Forester B.P.Mishra showing payment made to the labourers as per muster roll prepared by Forest Guard Sri Swain on his identification. Accused Premraj Dharua was the Forest Guard of Tapsuguda Forest Beat and Ext. 199 to Ext.210 are the muster rolls prepared by Sri Dharua. Said muster rolls were submitted to him (P.W.5) by the Forester B.P. Mishra and that he treated the same as vouchers and given his endorsement regarding payment in the Range Office cash book and assigned voucher CRLLP No.10 of 2014 Page 7 of 21 numbers on the muster rolls. The Forest Guard accused Dharua had also given endorsement and signatures to the effect that he had actually engaged the labourers on the work and on his identification their wages were paid and the signature and L.T.I. of labourers were obtained in the muster roll by the Forester. Ext. 199/2 to Ext.210/2 are the endorsement and signature of Forest Guard accused Dharua. The endorsement and signature on the muster roll that payment to the labourers were made as per identification of Forest Guard Sri Dharua by the Forester Sri Mishra is marked as Ext. 199/3 to 210/3. Accused Sankirtan Padhan was Forest Guard of Gudvela Forest Beat. He had maintained the muster roll marked as Ext. 211 to Ext. 214. The said muster rolls were submitted by Forester B.P.Mishra to him (P.W.5) and that he treated the same as vouchers assigned voucher numbers reflected the fact of payment of the amount made there under in the cash book of Range Office and put his endorsement and signature on the muster roll which are marked as Ext.211/1 to Ext.214/1. Ext. 211/2 to Ext. 214/2 are the endorsement with signature of Forest Guard Sri Padhan to the effect that persons named in the muster roll were actually engaged and wages was paid to them by Forester Sri Mishra on his identification. Ext. 211/3 to 214/3 are the endorsement with signature of Forester B.P.Mishra to the effect that the amount of money paid towards wages to the persons named CRLLP No.10 of 2014 Page 8 of 21 in the muster roll were actually engaged in work on the identification of the Forester. It further transpires from his evidence that he (P.W.5) submitted all the muster rolls mentioned above to the office of D.F.O. for adjustment of advance given to him after reflecting in the Range Office cash book. Ext. 214 is the cash book (Vol.102) of Bolangir Range Office for the period 15.3.1995 to 20.10.1995 maintained by him (P.W.5). The fact of payment made under muster rolls Ext. 175 has been reflected in the cash book marked as Ext.214/1 and he assigned voucher numbers 219. The said entry Ext.214/1 finds place at page 155 of the cash book. All the entries made in the Cash book are marked as Ext. 214, Ext. 215 and Ext. 216. The muster rolls submitted by him to the office of D.F.O. are verified and order “passed for payment” are obtained. The fact of payment made under muster rolls are reflected in the cash book maintained in the office of D.F.O. The evidence of P.W.5 clearly establish that the muster rolls are primarily maintained by the Forest Guard who used to engage labourer and payment to the labourers is made by the Forester on the identification of Forest Guard. It has been clearly noted in the said muster roll name of the labourers, number of days worked by them and payment thereon. The Junior Accountant of the office of D.F.O., Bolangir by name R.L Raju is examined as P.W.6 who also deposed about the procedure. He has stated that the Vigilance police seized forest advance vouchers i.e. Ext. 1 to Ext. CRLLP No.10 of 2014 Page 9 of 21 174 issued by Forester Biranchi Prasad Mishra receiving money from Range Officer. The Range Officer is to apply to funds to the D.F.O. and D.F.O. gives money in shape of cheque taking advance voucher from the Range Officer. The Range Officer used to show the cheque in his cash book and then withdraw the money from the Bank and gives money to the Foresters taking forest advance voucher from them. After execution of the work, the Forester used to submit execution vouchers to the Range Officer who is to reflect the same in the debit side and again will show it in the credit side as forest advance recovered. The Range Officer shall prepare copy of the cash book every month and will submit the same to the D.F.O. enclosing vouchers. So the evidence of PW.5 and P.W.6 gives a clear picture as to how the cheque is given by D.F.O. to Range Officer and the latter after encash used to distribute between the Foresters and the Forest Guard used to prepare muster roll and payment is made by the Forester in presence of Forest Guard on his identification. DEFENCE PLEA 5. The defence plea is complete denial of the allegations made against the accused persons. JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT 6. The learned trial Court framed the following points for determination:- CRLLP No.10 of 2014 Page 10 of 21 “(i) Whether the accused persons being public servants committed criminal misconduct and obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs.11,175/- while executing Silvi culture operation in between 11.9.1995 to 31.3.1996? (ii) Whether accused persons being public servants were entrusted with Rs.11,175/- and that they committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said property in furtherance of their common intention during the relevant period? (iii) Whether accused persons being public servants forged certain document i.e. manipulated the muster roll which was treated as paid vouchers in furtherance of their common intention during the relevant period? (iv) Whether accused persons being public servants fraudulently used the forged document as genuine knowing it to be forged in furtherance of their common intention during the relevant period? (v) Whether accused persons being public servants of forest Department falsified book of account belonging to Forest Department with intent to defraud the employer in furtherance of their common intention during the relevant period ?” 7. The learned trial court on assessment of the evidence of the witnesses arrived at the following findings:- (i) Evidence of P.W.5-Maheswar Pattanayak, the Range Officer and P.W.6-R.L. Raju, Jr. Accountant of the office of D.F.O. gives a clear CRLLP No.10 of 2014 Page 11 of 21 picture as to how the cheque is given by the D.F.O. used to be encashed as distributed between the Foresters and the Forest Guard used to prepare the muster roll and payment is made by the Forester in presence of the Forest Guard on his identification. (ii) None of the labourers supported the prosecution allegations. All have stated that they were engaged in silvi culture operation and have been paid their wages by the concerned Forest Guards in presence of Forester. They have been declared hostile by the prosecution but their omissions have not been confronted to the I.O. So the evidence of the labourers that they have been paid for their wages remains as it is. (iii) Opinion of the P.W.16-Antaryami Mohapatra finger print expert is the only incriminating material against the accused. Their finger prints of the accused were collected by the I.O. in presence of one Sanatan Bagarty a staff in the DFO office but he has not been examined. The accused have denied in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C that their thumb impression was taken by the I.O. (iv) Finger prints of both hands of the accused were taken separately but P.W.16 the expert has not maintained parity and has picked up certain finger prints and gave opinion. He has not stated about the years of his experience or what specialized training he had which was necessary for him to be treated as an expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. CRLLP No.10 of 2014 Page 12 of 21 (v) Evidence of an expert is anyways not conclusive, it can only be corroborative. (vi) The expert has filled up the columns in the forms. He has not given any independent opinion on the body of the report. Other experts who have signed on the reports have not been examined. (vii) There is no investigation regarding exact amount received by the accused by forging document. While Rs. 22,485/- has been mentioned in the FIR, in the charge-sheet, the amount has come down to Rs. 11,175/. No calculation sheet is available. (viii) D.W.1- Bipin Bihari Behera, the Assistant Conservator of Forest has stated that he had visited the work sites and verified the muster rolls and did not notice any irregularity. SUBMISSIONS 8. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel, Vigilance submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Court below is contrary to law, against the weight of evidence available on record and appears to have been based on misconception of law. He then submitted that the learned Court below should not have proceeded against the accused when the original case record was not available with him. He further submitted that as P.W.16, the finger print expert has stated in paragraphs 4, 7, 10 and 11 of his deposition that the thumb impression of the labourers available in the CRLLP No.10 of 2014 Page 13 of 21 vouchers do not belong to them but put by the accused Biranchi Prasad Misra and as he has misappropriated the said money by falsifying the vouchers showing the said document as genuine one, the offence is made out against the accused. 9. On the other hand, Ms.Saubhagyalaxmi Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.1 and Mr. Subham Das, learned counsel appearing for Mr.S.K.Dash, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.3 and 4 submitted that after careful perusal of the case record and the evidence of witnesses, the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order and ultimately acquitted the accused persons under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. and held that the accused persons not guilty for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) of the P.C. Act and under Sections 409, 467, 471, 477-A/34 of IPC. The judgment is neither perverse nor erroneous. The learned trial Court has considered the evidence on record and acquitted the opposite parties. It is not the case of the prosecution that either any admissible evidence has been left out or any inadmissible evidence has been taken into account. They further contended that taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.5, the Range Officer, the learned trial Court found that he used to encash the cheque by which fund is placed with him by the concerned DFO in advance and thereafter, the same is given to the Foresters working in different sections for silvi culture CRLLP No.10 of 2014 Page 14 of 21 operation, so the opposite parties have not committed any offence. In support of their submission, the counsel for the opposite parties relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.1167 of 2018, decided on 2nd April, 2024 and the decision of this Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Rabindra Nag and another, decided on 20.11.2023. They submit that the CRLLP should be dismissed as being devoid of merit. 10. Learned counsel for the parties have also relied on the decisions in the case of Gamini Bala Koteswar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh through Secretary: AIR 2010 SC 589 and Pritam Nath and others v. State of Punjab: 2002 (6) SCC 321. JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS 11. In the case of Ballu @ Balram (supra), the Supreme Court has held that: “19. At the cost of repetition, we are compelled to say that the findings of the High Court are totally based on conjectures and surmises. Though the High Court has referred to the law laid down by this Court with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court has totally misapplied the same and a very well-reasoned judgment based upon the correct CRLLP No.10 of 2014 Page 15 of 21 appreciation of evidence by the trial Court has been reversed by the High Court, only on the basis of conjectures and surmises. 20. The High Court could have interfered in the criminal appeal only if it came to the conclusion that the findings of the trial Judge were either perverse or impossible. As already discussed hereinbefore, no perversity or impossibility could be found in the approach adopted by the learned trial Judge. 21. In any case, even if two views are possible and the trial Judge found the other view to be more probable, an interference would not have been warranted by the High Court, unless the view taken by the learned trial Judge was a perverse or impossible view.22. In that view of the matter, we find that the judgment passed by the High Court is totally unsustainable in law.” In the case of Chandrappa (supra), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as follows:- "(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. CRLLP No.10 of 2014 Page 16 of 21 are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the 43 of 53 accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." In the case of Gamini Bala Koteswar Rao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh through Secretary: AIR 2010 SC 589, the appellants had faced trial for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and other sections. The learned trial court acquitted them holding that the genesis of the occurrence had been suppressed and there were inconsistencies in the ocular vis a vis medical evidence which went to the CRLLP No.10 of 2014 Page 17 of 21 root of the matter. The High Court in an appeal against acquittal filed by the State found that the eye witnesses account of PW.1 and PW.5 fully corresponded with the medical evidence and the presence of the two witnesses had been fully explained and that the so called improvements and inconsistencies referred to by the trial Judge in the course of its lengthy judgment, were innocuous and did not go to the root of the matter and could, therefore, be ignored. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court and held that the judgment of the trial court was perverse and partly allowed the appeal and convicted appellants 1 to 3 but confirmed the acquittal of one accused. In the case of Pritam Nath and others v. State of Punjab: 2002 (6) SCC 321, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants who had been acquitted by the trial court but convicted by the High Court, holding as follows: “No interference by the High Court in such an appeal was called for or warranted when the reasons given by the trial court for recording acquittal are good and sturdy. The trial court had the advantage and benefit of observing during the trial the demur and conduct of the witnesses from its commencement to completion and with that background on proper and objective appreciation of the evidence as a whole recorded a finding of acquittal supported by reasons. The High Court could not upset an order of acquittal as if it CRLLP No.10 of 2014 Page 18 of 21 was another trial court to record conviction forgetting that it was sitting in first appeal against an order of acquittal. The High Court failed to keep in its mind the well-settled principles in the matter of reversing an order of acquittal. Assuming one other view was possible to be taken by the High Court, that was not enough in the light of well-settled position in law. In this case, having regard to the discussion made and reasons given by the trial court, extracted above, it cannot be said that the appreciation of evidence was perverse or arbitrary or findings recorded were based on no evidence or material evidence was not considered. The High Court, in our view, committed a grave error in convicting and sentencing the accused, reversing the order of acquittal merely because it could take a different view. In a case like this it is the duty of this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment and order so as to do substantial justice.” DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 12. The scope of an appeal against acquittal is limited. 13. While considering an appeal against acquittal and before that an application for leave to appeal, an appellate court has to bear in mind that in case of acquittal, of an accused by a court, there is double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. The presumption of an CRLLP No.10 of 2014 Page 19 of 21 accused is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the acquittal by the trial court. The Appellate Court also has to bear in mind that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, and one view has been taken by the Court acquitting the accused, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court merely because another view is possible. 14. An appellate Court can however interfere with an order of acquittal if it is based on inadmissible material or if relevant evidence has been ignored or where it is perverse. 15. I have carefully perused the judgment of the learned trial Court and considered the submissions of the learned counsel. 16. The labourers who have been examined by the prosecution have stated that they have been paid their dues. 17. D.W.1, the Assistant Conservator of Forest has stated that he had visited the work sites and verified the muster rolls and did not notice any irregularity. 18. The report of P.W 16 the handwriting expert incriminates the accused persons. During pendency of this CRLLP, two of the opposite parties, i.e opposite parties Nos. 2 and 5 have died. CRLLP No.10 of 2014 Page 20 of 21 19. The opposite parties cannot be convicted on the basis of report of the P.W 16 the handwriting expert only. 20. After perusal of the impugned judgment and the evidence of P.W. 5 and 16 which were produced by Mr Sangram Das learned Standing Counsel Vigilance and considering the submissions of the counsel, I do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment as the view of the learned trial Court is a possible view on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and defence. It is not based on impermissible and extraneous materials nor has it ignored any evidence from consideration, which would have persuaded it to take a different view. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no ground to grant leave to the petitioner to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal. 22. The CRLLP is accordingly dismissed. ……………………… (Savitri Ratho) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated, the 30th May 2025/RKS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RANJAN KUMAR SETHI Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 06-Jun-2025 19:08:09 CRLLP No.10 of 2014 Page 21 of 21