The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.201 of 2024 Hrudananda Sahu …. Petitioner Mr. A.K. Chhatoi, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha, Vigilance …. Opp. Party Mr. S. Das, SC, Vigilance Department CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No.
Decision
ORDER 30.07.2025 05. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State Vigilance. 2. The legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Keonjhar in V.G.R. Case No.08 of 2021 has been called in question in this revision. 3. The background facts of the case are that the complainant, Harihar Sahu, lodged a written report before the S.P., Vigilance, Balasore, alleging that his mother, Rukmuni Dei, purchased a piece of land in Sirishapal Mouza in the year 1972, for which he applied for mutation of land. However, the Tahasildar rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid finding of the Tahasildar, the complainant moved a revision before the Settlement Officer, Sambalpur. The Settlement Officer directed the Tahasildar to issue the ROR in favour of the Petitioner. Thereafter, the complainant filed an application before the Tahasildar, Sadar, Keonjhar for mutation. The Tahasildar directed the Petitioner to conduct field verification and submit a report. Although the complainant visited the office of the Tahasildar repeatedly in connection with the mutation application, there was no progress. Finally, on 05.11.2021, the Petitioner demanded Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant for conducting the field verification and submitting the report. On 09.11.2021, the complainant went to the office of the Petitioner and handed over Rs. 20,000/- as bribe. The Petitioner received the same and kept it in his almirah. Upon enquiry, the Petitioner disclosed that he had kept the bribe money in his office almirah. Thereafter, the bribe money and other incriminating articles were seized from the accused by the vigilance squad. Accordingly, the Petitioner was arrested on 09.11.2021 for committing an offence under Section 7 of the P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2018. 4. The written complaint of the Petitioner was registered vide Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 22 of 2021, and investigation commenced by laying a trap in the presence of witnesses. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the Petitioner showing the alleged commission of offence under Section 7 of the P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2018. The learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Keonjhar took cognizance of the Page 2 of 5 offence under Section 7 of the P.C. (Amendment) Act and posted the case for consideration of charge. 5. The Petitioner moved an application before the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge. After hearing the parties, the learned court, vide the impugned order, declined to discharge the Petitioner, thereby giving rise to the present revision. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in the course of hearing the revision, inter alia, submitted that the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act are not made out against the Petitioner. It was further submitted that although the learned Special Judge, in the impugned order, stated that upon going through the charge sheet and documents, he found a prima facie case against the Petitioner, such findings are based on surmises, as there is absolutely no allegation against the Petitioner in the FIR or the charge sheet regarding his involvement. As such, the impugned order is manifestly illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He further submitted that the learned Special Judge lost sight of the basic canons of criminal jurisprudence while passing the impugned order, and the same, being not in consonance with the established principles of law, deserves to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the State, Vigilance, on the contrary, submitted that the statement of the decoy attributes to the Petitioner the demand for a bribe in lieu of conducting the field Page 3 of 5 verification required to affect the mutation of the land purchased in the name of the complainant’s mother. The complainant, being aggrieved by the Petitioner’s demand while discharging his official duty, lodged a report against the Petitioner before the Vigilance. Pursuant to such report, and upon completion of the necessary formalities, a trap was laid, during which the Petitioner was found in possession of the tainted money and was caught red- handed. Accordingly, a charge sheet was submitted against him. Learned counsel further submitted that there is ample material, both oral and documentary, to implicate the Petitioner in the alleged offence. He submits that according to Mr. Das, learned counsel for the State, the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner may, at best, be advanced during trial for his benefit, but at this stage, there is sufficient material satisfying all the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, clearly implicating the Petitioner in the offence. 8. Having regard to the contentions raised by the respective parties and upon perusal of the records, it emerges that the complainant lodged a report with the Vigilance regarding the demand of bribe made by the Petitioner for carrying out field verification in order to refer the same for the purpose of mutation of the land belonging to the complainant’s mother. The record further reveals that, based on the allegations made by the complainant, the Vigilance squad laid a trap and found the Petitioner in possession of the tainted money, which was recovered from him red-handed. The statements of the witnesses, Page 4 of 5 including the decoy, recorded in connection with the vigilance raid, prima facie suggest that the Petitioner demanded and accepted the bribe in lieu of performing an official act in his capacity as a public servant, which constitutes an offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. 9. In view of the above, the grounds propounded by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in support of his discharge may, at best, be advanced during trial, if they are found to benefit him in any manner, in light of the materials prima facie implicating him in the alleged offence. This Court, therefore, does not find that the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, suffers from any illegality in declining to discharge the Petitioner so as to warrant interference therein. 10. Accordingly, the CRLREV stands dismissed. Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) KC Bisoi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KRUSHNA CHANDRA BISOI Reason: Authentication Location: orissa high court Date: 01-Aug-2025 16:06:18 Page 5 of 5