Sashibhusan Bhoi Vs State of Orissa

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.129 of 2005

(An Appeal from the judgment and order dated 04.03.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) in T.R. Case No.47 of 1995)

¶3

-versus-

¶4

State of Odisha (Vig.)

¶5

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Date of Hearing & Date of Judgment: 19.12.2025

¶6

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

¶7

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.03.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), whereby the Appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter in short “P.C. Act”), and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month, in T.R. Case No. 47 of 1995.

¶8

The prosecution case, as emerges from the materials on record and the evidence unfolded before the learned trial Court, is that the Appellant, while functioning as a public servant in the capacity of Amin attached to Badrama R.I. Circle under Jamankira Police Station in the district of Sambalpur, was approached by the

¶9

Signature Not Verified

¶10

Page 1 of 16

¶11

CRLA No.129 of 2005

¶12

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPRA MUDULI Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 10:39:29

¶13

Complainant, P.W.1, for execution of official work relating to demarcation of land. It is alleged that the Appellant demanded a sum of Rs.500/- as illegal gratification for performing the said work. Finding no alternative, the Complainant is stated to have paid an amount of Rs.250/- to the Appellant on 29.07.1994 and requested him to execute the work. However, the Appellant allegedly insisted upon payment of the balance amount of Rs.250/and did not carry out the work unless the same was paid. Being aggrieved by the demand for illegal gratification, the Complainant reported the matter before the Vigilance Police, Sambalpur. Consequently, a trap was laid, pursuant to which the Appellant was allegedly caught red-handed while accepting a bribe amount of Rs.250/- from the Complainant.

¶14

Upon receipt of the complaint, the same was registered as Exhibit-1. On 31.07.1994, at about 7.00 a.m., the pre-trap preparation commenced at the Vigilance Office. During the course of preparation, the Complainant was introduced to the official witnesses and other vigilance officials present, before whom he stated that he was to pay an amount of Rs.250/- to the Appellant, as demanded by him on that very day. The Complainant produced two currency notes of Rs.100/- each and one currency note of Rs.50/-, which were proposed to be used in the trap. The numbers of the said currency notes were noted down by P.W.2, Gyanaranjan Pradhan. Thereafter, phenolphthalein powder was applied to the said currency notes and a demonstration was conducted by preparing a colourless sodium carbonate solution. When P.W.2 dipped his fingers in the solution, there was no change in colour; however,

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPRA MUDULI Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 10:39:29

¶17

Page 2 of 16

¶18

CRLA No.129 of 2005

¶19

upon touching the phenolphthalein powder and again dipping his fingers in the solution, the solution turned pink, which was duly labelled and sealed.

¶20

Thereafter, the tainted currency notes were kept in the shirt pocket of the Complainant with instructions not to touch the same and to hand over the entire amount to the Appellant only on demand. The personal search of the Complainant and the accompanying witness was conducted. The accompanying witness was instructed to overhear the conversation between the Complainant and the Appellant, to witness the handing over and acceptance of the bribe money, and to give the pre-arranged signal to the raiding party.

¶21

After completion of the pre-trap preparation, the raiding party proceeded towards the spot. Subsequently, the Complainant and the accompanying witness returned and informed the vigilance officers that the Appellant had asked them to go to village Haldibahal and had stated that he would receive the money after completion of demarcation. Accordingly, the raiding party, along with the Complainant and accompanying witness, proceeded to village Haldibahal and waited nearby. At about 3.10 p.m., upon receipt of the pre-arranged signal from the accompanying witness, the raiding party rushed to the spot and challenged the Appellant near the football field at Makariaguda, where he was found in the company of the Complainant, the accompanying witness, and another person who was later identified as the peon of the R.I. Office.

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPRA MUDULI Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 10:39:29

¶24

Page 3 of 16

¶25

CRLA No.129 of 2005

¶26

Upon being challenged, the tainted currency notes amounting to Rs.250/- were recovered from the Appellant. The hand-wash of the Appellant was taken in sodium carbonate solution, which turned pink. The recovered currency notes were tallied with the numbers noted earlier and were found to be correct. Necessary seizure lists were prepared in respect of the tainted money and other incriminating materials, and the detection report was drawn up, a copy of which was furnished to the Appellant.

¶27

During investigation, the relevant case records were requisitioned from the Tahasildar, Kuchinda. The seized samples and materials were forwarded to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhubaneswar, for chemical examination. The encroachment case record was seized from the Tahasil Office, Kuchinda, vide Exhibit-10. After completion of investigation, a presanction discussion was held with the sanctioning authority, P.W.5, Tahin Kanta Pandey, IAS, the then Collector, Sambalpur, who, upon perusal of the records, accorded sanction for prosecution under Exhibit-11. Thereafter, the Appellant was arrested and released on bail, and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted.

¶28

The plea of the defence is one of complete denial and false implication.

¶29

In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined five witnesses. P.W.1, Biswanath Besan, is the Complainant. P.W.2, Gyanaranjan Pradhan, is the official (magisterial) witness associated with the raiding party. P.W.3, Sarat Chandra Dash, is a witness to the pre-trap preparation and post-trap

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPRA MUDULI Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 10:39:29

¶32

Page 4 of 16

¶33

CRLA No.129 of 2005

¶34

detection. P.W.4, Bhawani Shankar Mishra, is the Investigating Officer. P.W.5, Tahin Kanta Pandey, is the sanctioning authority.

¶35

The learned Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, recorded a finding that the Complainant, in his cross-examination, admitted recovery of the tainted money from the shirt pocket of the Appellant. It was further noticed from the evidence of P.W.3 that the Appellant fumbled when challenged and, upon being asked, brought out the tainted currency notes from his shirt pocket. The numbers of the G.C. notes were compared with the numbers earlier noted by the official witnesses and were found to tally. The hand-wash of the Appellant, when taken in sodium carbonate solution, turned pink. Relying upon the decision in the matter of T. Shankar Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh , reported in 2004 OCR (SC) 599 , to the effect that when tainted money is recovered from the possession of the accused, a presumption under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act arises, the learned trial Court accepted the aforesaid evidence and came to the conclusion that the Appellant had demanded and accepted illegal gratification. On such reasoning, the Appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. However, the learned trial Court found the Appellant not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and accordingly acquitted him of the said charge.

¶36

Ms. S. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, during the hearing of this Appeal, strenuously argued and drew the attention of this Court to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses,

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPRA MUDULI Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 10:39:29

¶39

Page 5 of 16

¶40

CRLA No.129 of 2005

¶41

particularly the Complainant (P.W.1), who, according to learned counsel, did not support the prosecution case on its substratum. It was further contended that the most vital witness, who was allegedly present to overhear the conversation between the Complainant and the Appellant relating to the demand and acceptance of bribe, was withheld from examination by the prosecution. It was submitted that the remaining witnesses, whose evidence was relied upon by the learned trial Court, are only formal or official witnesses and their testimony does not establish the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and erroneously recorded a finding of guilt under Section 7 of the P.C. Act merely on the basis of recovery of tainted money from the possession of the Appellant by invoking a presumption, without there being legally acceptable proof of demand. It was, therefore, contended that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are contrary to the evidence on record as well as settled principles of law and are liable to be set aside.

¶42

Mr. Rizvi, learned counsel appearing for the StateVigilance, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and canvassed the same to be absolutely in accordance with the evidence based on facts and law. Arguing in vehemence he submitted that even in cross-examination, particularly at paragraph 5 of his evidence, the Complainant admitted material facts supporting the prosecution case. Learned counsel argued that the Complainant-decoy did not resile from the fact that he had

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPRA MUDULI Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 10:39:29

¶45

Page 6 of 16

¶46

CRLA No.129 of 2005

¶47

approached the Vigilance authorities complaining about the demand made by the Appellant. It was further submitted that the Complainant supported the prosecution case to the extent that he had made payment of money to the Appellant and that such payment was not disputed. Learned counsel for the State further contended that the Complainant’s evidence clearly establishes that he had approached the Appellant for demarcation of land, that the Appellant demanded a sum of Rs.500/- as illegal gratification, and that the Complainant, considering the amount to be on the higher side, requested reduction thereof. He argued that the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 further corroborates the prosecution version inasmuch as they deposed that pursuant to the complaint lodged by the Complainant, pre-trap preparation was undertaken in his presence, during which the Complainant narrated the facts relating to the demand of illegal gratification by the Appellant and the proposed payment of the same. According to Mr. Rizvi, the aforesaid evidence, taken cumulatively, establishes the demand of illegal gratification by the Appellant, the acceptance thereof, and the recovery of the tainted money from his possession. It was, therefore, submitted that the learned trial Court rightly invoked the statutory presumption and correctly held the Appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and that the impugned judgment warrants no interference.

¶48

In order to appreciate the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and to examine the correctness of the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, it is necessary to independently

¶49

Signature Not Verified

¶50

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPRA MUDULI Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 10:39:29

¶51

Page 7 of 16

¶52

CRLA No.129 of 2005

¶53

scrutinise the evidence led by the prosecution. With that object, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is examined hereinbelow, witness-wise, to ascertain whether the prosecution has been able to establish the essential ingredients of the offence alleged against the Appellant, particularly with regard to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

¶54

P.W.1 , Biswabhushan Besan , stated that he is the Complainant in the case. According to him, there was a land dispute in respect of which police required a demarcation report. He stated that he approached the Appellant, Sashibhusan Bhoi, who was working as Amin, for demarcation of the land, and that the Appellant demanded a sum of Rs.500/- as illegal gratification for conducting the demarcation. He further stated that he initially paid Rs.250/- and, as the Appellant insisted on payment of the balance amount, he approached the Vigilance Office and lodged the written report. He narrated the pre-trap procedure, including production of two-hundred-rupee currency notes and one fifty-rupee note, application of chemical powder, and instructions given to him. He stated that on the date of occurrence, after demarcation of the land, he handed over the tainted money to the Appellant near Makariaguda, which was allegedly witnessed by the accompanying witness. He further stated that immediately thereafter the Vigilance officers arrived, challenged the Appellant, recovered the tainted money from his pocket, conducted hand-wash and pocket-wash tests which turned pink, and prepared the necessary seizure lists and detection report. In cross-examination, however, P.W.1 made several statements suggesting that the money was paid without any

¶55

Signature Not Verified

¶56

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPRA MUDULI Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 10:39:29

¶57

Page 8 of 16

¶58

CRLA No.129 of 2005

¶59

demand at the relevant time, that payment was made on the way after demarcation, and that the Appellant had not demanded money at the spot, thereby introducing material inconsistencies with his examination-in-chief.

¶60

P.W.2 , Gyanaranjan Pradhan , stated that at the relevant time he was working as Addl. Commercial Tax Officer and was deputed as an official witness for the vigilance trap. He deposed regarding the pre-trap formalities, including preparation of sodium carbonate solution, demonstration of chemical reaction, noting down the numbers of the currency notes, and preparation of the pre-trap report. He stated that he accompanied the vigilance team to the area, remained at a distance, and on receipt of the pre-arranged signal, rushed to the spot where the Appellant was apprehended. He stated that the Appellant admitted to having received the bribe amount, that hand-wash and pocket-wash tests were conducted and turned pink, and that the tainted money was recovered and tallied with the noted numbers. In cross-examination, P.W.2 admitted that he had not personally heard any demand of bribe by the Appellant and had not seen the exact manner in which the money was passed, and that whatever he stated regarding demand and acceptance was based on what was told to him by others.

¶61

P.W.3, Sarat Chandra Dash, stated that he was working as Junior Clerk in the C.T.O. Office and was deputed as an official witness. He deposed about the preparation stage at the Vigilance Office, including production of the tainted currency notes by the Complainant, demonstration of chemical reaction, smearing of chemical powder on the notes, and instructions given to the

¶62

Signature Not Verified

¶63

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPRA MUDULI Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 10:39:29

¶64

Page 9 of 16

¶65

CRLA No.129 of 2005

¶66

Complainant and accompanying witness. He further stated that he was part of the raiding party and, upon receiving the signal, reached the spot where the Appellant was challenged. He stated that the Appellant produced the tainted money, hand-wash and pocket-wash tests were conducted, and seizure lists were prepared. This witness was declared hostile to a limited extent, and in his crossexamination by the prosecution, he admitted that the Appellant had been challenged for acceptance of bribe and that the chemical tests yielded positive results. In cross-examination by the defence, he admitted that he did not hear any demand of bribe and did not witness the actual passing of money.

¶67

P.W.4 , Bhawani Shankar Mishra, stated that he was the Vigilance Inspector and the Investigating Officer in the case. He deposed in detail regarding registration of the vigilance case, pretrap arrangements, demonstration of phenolphthalein test, instructions to the Complainant and accompanying witness, and movement of the raiding party. He stated that after receiving the pre-arranged signal, he challenged the Appellant near the football field at Makariaguda, whereupon the Appellant admitted to having received Rs.250/- as bribe. He further stated that the tainted money was recovered from the Appellant’s pocket, the hand-wash and pocket-wash tests were conducted which turned pink, and the seizure lists and detection report were prepared. He also deposed regarding sending the samples for chemical examination, collection of relevant records, obtaining sanction for prosecution, and submission of charge-sheet. In cross-examination, he admitted that no demand was made by the Appellant in the R.I. Office and that

¶68

Signature Not Verified

¶69

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPRA MUDULI Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 10:39:29

¶70

Page 10 of 16

¶71

CRLA No.129 of 2005

¶72

the vigilance party did not hear the demand directly, and that the alleged demand was said to have been made after demarcation.

¶73

P.W.5 , Tuhin Kanta Pandey, stated that at the relevant time he was posted as Collector, Sambalpur. He deposed that the Investigating Officer placed before him the relevant records, including the vigilance report and connected documents, and after perusal of the same and upon being satisfied that a prima facie case existed, he accorded sanction for prosecution of the Appellant, Sashibhusan Bhoi. He proved the sanction order and his signature thereon. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that sanction was accorded mechanically or without application of mind.

¶74

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and upon consideration of the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, it is no longer res integra that, in order to establish an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is the sine qua non . The said principle has been authoritatively reiterated by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731 , wherein it has been held as follows:

¶75

“ 68 . What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:

¶76

(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.

¶77

Signature Not Verified

¶78

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPRA MUDULI Reason: AuthenticationLocation: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack CRLA No.129 of 2005 Date: 22-Dec-2025 10:39:29

¶79

Page 11 of 16

¶80

(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.

¶81

(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.

¶82

(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:

¶83

(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.

¶84

(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

¶85

(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.

¶86

Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when

¶87

Signature Not Verified

¶88

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPRA MUDULI Reason: AuthenticationLocation: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack CRLA No.129 of 2005 Date: 22-Dec-2025 10:39:29

¶89

Page 12 of 16

¶90

accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.

¶91

(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.

¶92

(f) In the event the Complainant turns ‘hostile’, or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.

¶93

(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.

¶94

(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.

¶95

Signature Not Verified

¶96

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPRA MUDULI Reason: AuthenticationLocation: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack CRLA No.129 of 2005 Date: 22-Dec-2025 10:39:29

¶97

Page 13 of 16

¶98

In the case at hand, it is an admitted position that the decoy/Complainant did not fully support the prosecution case at the later stage of his evidence, particularly with regard to the aspect of demand at the time of the alleged acceptance. However, it is equally evident from his deposition that, except for resiling from the specific assertion of demand at the relevant point of time, the Complainant substantially admitted the prosecution version to the extent that he had approached the Vigilance authorities and lodged a complaint alleging demand of illegal gratification by the Appellant. Thus, while the Complainant did not unequivocally affirm the demand at the stage of acceptance, he did accept that a report was made by him before the Vigilance Police alleging such demand by the Appellant.

¶99

It is to be noted that the most crucial witness in the entire prosecution case was the accompanying witness, who was allegedly present with the Complainant at the time of the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and who was expected to overhear the conversation between the Complainant and the Appellant and witness the passing of money. For reasons best known to the prosecution, the said accompanying witness was withheld from examination. In the absence of such substantive evidence directly relating to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the prosecution case rests merely on recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the Appellant.

¶100

It is well settled that recovery of tainted money, by itself, does not prove the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act unless it is established that such recovery was pursuant to a demand made by

¶101

Signature Not Verified

¶102

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPRA MUDULI Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 10:39:29

¶103

Page 14 of 16

¶104

CRLA No.129 of 2005

¶105

the public servant and payment made in consequence thereof. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to adduce reliable evidence to demonstrate that the amount allegedly paid by the Complainant and recovered from the Appellant was in response to any demand made by the Appellant. Consequently, even if the recovery of money from the possession of the Appellant is accepted, the same does not, in the absence of proof of demand, lead to the irresistible conclusion that the amount was accepted as illegal gratification.

¶106

This unresolved evidentiary gap strikes at the very root of the prosecution case and renders the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act inapplicable, as the foundational facts necessary to invoke such presumption have not been established. The evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4, though consistent and coherent with regard to the procedural aspects of the trap, including the pretrap preparation, recovery, and preparation of the detection report, remains essentially formal in nature. Such evidence, however, cannot substitute proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

¶107

In the absence of substantive evidence, or even cogent circumstantial evidence, establishing that the Appellant had demanded illegal gratification and that the tainted money recovered from his possession was accepted pursuant to such demand, the guilt of the Appellant cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

¶108

As discussed hereinabove, the evidence of the Complainant is conspicuously silent with regard to payment of illegal gratification pursuant to any demand made by the Appellant.

¶109

Signature Not Verified

¶110

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPRA MUDULI Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 10:39:29

¶111

Page 15 of 16

¶112

CRLA No.129 of 2005

¶113

Further, in the absence of any evidence from the accompanying witness, who alone could have deposed about having overheard the conversation relating to demand and witnessed the payment, the prosecution has failed to establish that the Appellant accepted the alleged bribe amount in consequence of any demand made by him. In such circumstances, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶114

This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence brought on record in its proper perspective and in consonance with settled principles of law. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 04.03.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) in T.R. Case No.47 of 1995 are hereby set aside. The Appellant stands acquitted of the charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶115

In view of the acquittal of the Appellant, the bail bonds furnished by him pursuant to the interim orders passed in the present appeal stand discharged.

¶116

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶117

Sipra

¶118

Signature Not Verified

¶119

Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPRA MUDULI Reason: AuthenticationLocation: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack CRLA No.129 of 2005 Date: 22-Dec-2025 10:39:29

¶120

Page 16 of 16

Sashibhusan Bhoi v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sashibhusan Bhoi v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalit Kumar Vs Republic of India

Omm Shree Sai Seva Educational Trust, Keonjhar Vs State of Odisha

Minaketan Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Prasanta K. Rath Vs Republic of India

Rama Ch.Parida Vs State

Madan Nath Vs State of Odisha