Rajkishore Satapathy Vs State of Orissa (Vigilance)

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack in T.R. Case No. 24 of 2009, whereby the Appellant who faced trial for offences under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the “PC Act”), having found guilty thereof sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- for the offence under Section 13(2), and R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, with default sentences of one year and six months respectively.

¶13

CRLA No.658 of 2012

¶14

Page 1 of 10

¶15

The prosecution case, as unfolded before the learned trial court, is that one Satya Prakash Swain, the complainant (P.W.1), had applied for issuance of death certificates of his wife, Rasmirekha , who died in the year 2000, and his father, Muralidhar Swain , who passed away on 08.01.2006. The complainant deposited the requisite fees in the treasury and handed over a copy of the treasury challan to the Appellant-Rajkishore Satapathy, who was then serving as the Vital Statistics Clerk at the Indupur Primary Health Centre (PHC) and was dealing with such matters. The Appellant allegedly informed the complainant that there were certain difficulties in the documents and that the death certificates could not be issued. Upon repeated approaches, the Appellant allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.200/- as illegal gratification for issuing the certificates. Finding no alternative, the complainant paid Rs.100/- to the Appellant, who asked him to bring the balance amount of Rs.100/- on 07.02.2006 for issuance of the death certificates. As the complainant was unwilling to pay the bribe, he reported the matter in writing to the Vigilance Police.

¶16

On receipt of the written complaint, the Inspector, Vigilance, Kendrapara Squad, forwarded the same to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Cuttack, who directed the Officer-in-Charge, Vigilance Police Station, Cuttack, to register a case. Accordingly, Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 3 of 2006 was registered under Section 7 of the PC Act vide Ext.1. A trap team was thereafter constituted under the leadership of Shri D.B. Patel, D.S.P. (Vigilance), with Inspector H.S. Mishra as the trap-laying officer (P.W.5), and Inspector Niranjan Rout , Constables R.K.

¶17

CRLA No.658 of 2012

¶18

Page 2 of 10

¶19

Sahoo and Arun Kumar Samanta of the Kendrapara Vigilance Squad as members. After compliance with all pre-trap formalities, the trap was laid. The complainant, accompanied by overhearing witness Nikunja Kishore Rana (P.W.2), went to the Indupur PHC building, while other members of the trap team took positions nearby. The complainant entered the office chamber of the Appellant, while the overhearing witness remained standing near the door. The Appellant allegedly enquired whether the complainant had brought the demanded amount of Rs.100/-, to which the complainant replied in the affirmative. Upon such demand, the complainant handed over the tainted currency notes, which the Appellant received and kept in his purse, placing it in the right pocket of his pant. On receiving the pre-arranged signal, the vigilance team entered the office, disclosed their identity, and challenged the Appellant for having accepted the bribe. His hands were subjected to chemical solution tests, which turned pink. After completion of the required formalities and investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded, and a charge-sheet was submitted against the Appellant.

¶20

In order to establish the culpability of the Appellant, the prosecution examined in all six witnesses. P.W.1 is the complainant, P.W.2 is the overhearing witness, P.W.3 is the Junior Clerk in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Kendrapara, P.W.4 is the Health Officer and the competent authority to issue death certificates, P.W.5 is the Trap Laying Officer, and P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer. On the other hand, the defence examined one witness, Upendra Nayak, who was then

¶21

CRLA No.658 of 2012

¶22

Page 3 of 10

¶23

working as Vital Statistics Clerk in the Indupur Community Health Centre (CHC), as D.W.1 in support of its case.

¶24

The plea of the Appellant, as recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., is one of complete denial and false implication. The Appellant contended that although the complainant had applied for death certificates of his father and wife, he had not furnished the requisite supporting documents necessary for issuance of the same. On the date of the alleged occurrence, the complainant is said to have produced certain papers in which a one-hundred-rupee note had been concealed, and immediately thereafter, the Vigilance officials arrived and seized the said note from the table, thereby falsely implicating the Appellant in the present case.

¶25

The learned Trial Court, upon a comprehensive analysis of the evidence adduced by six prosecution witnesses and one defence witness, and upon examination of the documents marked as Exts. 1 to 17 and M.Os. I to VI on behalf of the prosecution, and Ext. A on behalf of the defence, found the Appellant guilty of the offences charged and accordingly sentenced him in the manner stated hereinbefore.

¶26

Mr. D. P. Das, learned counsel for the Appellant, while assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of “demand” and “acceptance” of illegal gratification, which are the sine qua non for a conviction under the provisions of the PC Act. It was contended that the complainant’s application for the death certificate of his wife, who had died at Kendrapara in the

¶27

CRLA No.658 of 2012

¶28

Page 4 of 10

¶29

year 2000, was submitted at Indupur in 2006, falsely describing the death as natural to suppress the fact that a criminal case for murder was pending against him. Hence, the Appellant, being a Vital Statistics Clerk at the Indupur PHC, had neither the authority nor the occasion to issue such certificate or to demand any illegal gratification in relation thereto.

¶30

Learned counsel further argued that the alleged demand of bribe; both the initial and the subsequent was not established by cogent evidence. Although the FIR was purportedly lodged on 06.02.2006 at 4:00 p.m., it bears the time of registration as 1:00 p.m., indicating manipulation. The complainant’s statements were inconsistent with regard to the dates and sequence of events, and the alleged application (Ext. 5) was on plain paper without any date, contrary to the prescribed format. It was also pointed out that the complainant’s wife had died of burn injuries on 22.08.2000, which was the subject of investigation under Sections 302/304-B/498A/34 IPC. Therefore, the death certificate ought to have been applied for before the Kendrapara Municipality within one year, as required under Rules 8 and 9 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Rules. Applying for the certificate after six years at Indupur was irregular and evidently designed to conceal material facts.

¶31

It was further submitted that the complainant had deposited only Rs.17/- towards search fees but had not paid the requisite registration fees, and the Appellant had assumed that such fees would be paid upon delivery of the certificates. Under Rule 18 of the said Rules, payment could be made in cash, and hence, mere receipt of Rs.100/- could not, by itself, be treated as acceptance of

¶32

CRLA No.658 of 2012

¶33

Page 5 of 10

¶34

bribe. Learned counsel also submitted that a tape recorder had allegedly been provided to the complainant by the Vigilance authorities to record the transaction, but no such recording was produced during trial. The overhearing witness (P.W.2) remained silent as to any specific demand, merely stating that after some discussion between the Appellant and the complainant, money was handed over, which, according to the defence, indicated voluntary payment rather than bribery. He further pointed out that P.W. 3, the Magistrate witness, deposed that when the Vigilance team entered the room, the Appellant was holding the note in his hand, contradicting the prosecution version that it was kept in his purse. The inconsistency regarding whether recovery was made from the “front” or “back” pocket of the pant, it was urged, further undermines the credibility of the prosecution case.

¶35

Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the State (Vigilance), per contra , supported the findings of the learned Trial Court and contended that the prosecution had successfully proved both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. It was submitted that immediately after the prearranged signal, the Vigilance team entered the office of the Appellant, and both hand washes of the Appellant, when subjected to the phenolphthalein test, turned pink, indicating his handling of the tainted currency notes. The chemical examination report of the RFSL further corroborated this fact. The testimony of the complainant (P.W.1), supported by that of the overhearing witness (P.W.2) and the trap-laying officer (P.W.5), clearly established that

¶36

CRLA No.658 of 2012

¶37

Page 6 of 10

¶38

the Appellant had demanded and accepted Rs.100/- as illegal gratification for issuing the death certificates.

¶39

It was further argued that the explanation offered by the Appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was wholly unsatisfactory and failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act, which mandates that once the acceptance of gratification is proved, it shall be presumed to be a reward or motive unless the contrary is established. Reliance was placed upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raghubir Singh vs. State of Haryana , reported in (1974) 4 SCC 560, T. Shankar Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh , reported in (2004) 3 SCC 753, Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab , reported in 2015 Cri. L. 1442, and State of Karnataka vs. Chandrasha , reported in (2025) 97 OCR (SC)-323 . In the present case, no such rebuttal has been made by the Appellant, and the defence version appears to be an afterthought intended only to evade liability. Accordingly, it was urged that the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court call for no interference.

¶40

Having regard to the evidence on record and upon a careful scrutiny of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that there exist material inconsistencies with regard to the recovery of the tainted money and other vital aspects of the prosecution case. P.W.6, the I.O., candidly admitted during cross-examination that he had not verified whether the complainant had actually submitted the requisite documents or paid the prescribed fees along with the application for issuance of death certificates. He further conceded that the application vide Ext.5 was written on plain paper and not in

¶41

CRLA No.658 of 2012

¶42

Page 7 of 10

¶43

the prescribed format as required under the relevant Rules.There were also noticeable discrepancies concerning the date and time of the alleged demand as well as the trap proceedings, which cast a shadow of doubt over the veracity of the prosecution version.

¶44

There is nothing in the evidence that the Complainant was entitled to be issued with the death certificate of his wife in view of pendency of the criminal case involving offence U/s. 302 IPC relating to her death. The I.O., in course of the investigation, did not verify whether any circular, instruction or standing order existed requiring issuance of such certificates only on specific days, i.e., Tuesdays and Thursdays, as stated by P.W.4. In that view, the Appellant’s direction to the complainant to come on 07.02.2006 being a Thursday cannot, without more, be inferred to have been made for the purpose of demanding or accepting a bribe; it could equally have been for the legitimate purpose of delivering the certificates. The certificates seized and proved as exhibits further reveal that the signatures of the competent authority were affixed on 07.02.2006 itself. Considering that the application was made on 04.02.2006 and the certificates were issued merely three days thereafter, the complainant’s claim of having made repeated approaches to the Appellant appears improbable and detracts from the credibility of his version.

¶45

It is a settled law that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is sine qua non for establishing guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) of the PC Act. The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act does not arise unless the prosecution first proves such demand and

¶46

CRLA No.658 of 2012

¶47

Page 8 of 10

¶48

acceptance. The same has been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent decision in the matter of Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. , reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 273 , as follows: -

¶49

“ 12. It has been categorically held by the Constitution Bench that the proof of demand (or an offer) and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is a fact in issue in the criminal proceeding and is a sine qua non to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. Unless proof is offered to the satisfaction of the Court that there is a demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the presumption would not arise. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot arise on the mere allegation of a demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as rightly pointed out by the appellant. The question of presumption does not arise in the present case where the Special Court had merely examined the complainant and also summoned three witnesses, the officers of the investigation team, under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of recording their statements. This is precharge evidence based on which summons have been issued to the accused Nos.2 to 7. However, even a primafacie finding has to be on the basis of allegations containing the definite ingredients for which proof could be offered at the trial, giving rise to the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, which presumption is also rebuttable.”

¶50

In the present case, the evidence discloses material inconsistencies regarding the date of application, payment of prescribed fees, and the place as well as manner of recovery of the tainted currency. None of the official witnesses have unequivocally deposed that the amount received by the Appellant was not towards the prescribed fees. The Investigating Officer also admitted that he had not verified whether Rule 18 of the Registration of Births and

¶51

CRLA No.658 of 2012

¶52

Page 9 of 10

¶53

Deaths Rules permitted receipt of such fees in cash. The inconsistencies in the statements of the complainant, the overhearing witness, and the official witnesses together create a reasonable doubt as to the alleged demand and conscious acceptance of any bribe. Though the hand-wash test yielded a positive result, such circumstance alone, in the absence of reliable proof of demand and voluntary acceptance, cannot form the basis of conviction.

¶54

Upon careful and anxious consideration of the entire evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of “demand” and “acceptance” of illegal gratification. Consequently, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act cannot be invoked against the Appellant.

¶55

Accordingly, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.112012, passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack in T.R. Case No. 24 of 2009, convicting the Appellant under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him as stated therein, are hereby set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

¶56

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶57

Signature Not Verified

¶58

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer AKPradhan Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 30-Oct-2025 18:08:04

¶59

CRLA No.658 of 2012

¶60

Page 10 of 10

Rajkishore Satapathy v. State of Orissa (Vigilance)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkishore Satapathy v. State of Orissa (Vigilance)

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

Ranjan Ku.Das Vs State

Nabrun Patnaik Vs State of Orissa

Sukhalata Nayak Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Pramila Singh Vs State of Odisha

Sadasiva Acharya Vs State of Odisha

Manash Kumar Barik Vs State of Odisha