Dismissed¶33

State of Orissa v. Raghunath Pradhan

Orissa HC6 Nov 2025CRLLP/14/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Leave to appeal against acquittal refused; State of Orissa v. Raghunath Pradhan; CRLLP No.14 of 2009; High Court of Orissa; Section 378(1)(3) Cr.P.C.; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d); Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore; T.R No.45 of 2007; acquittal dated 18.10.2008; condonation of 11-day delay; Misc. Case No.27 of 2014; demand of bribe not established; trap case; no interference after lapse of more than one and a half decades; A.K. Mohapatra, J.; order dated 06.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

The 11-day delay in presentation of the leave application is condoned and the I.A. (Misc. Case No.27 of 2014) stands disposed of. ¶22

State of Orissa Vs Raghunath Pradhan — Corruption | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.14 of 2009

¶2

State Of Orissa

¶3

.....

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Represented By Adv. - Sangaram Das, A.S.C. for Vigilance

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Raghunath Pradhan

¶8

.....

¶9

Opp. Party

¶10

Represented By Adv. - M/s. Deba Prasad Das, S.r.das

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

06.11.2025

Order No.

05.

Misc. Case No.27 of 2014

¶18

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶19

Heard Mr.Sangram Das, learned Additional Standing counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the privateOpposite Party.

¶20

The present application has been filed for condonation of delay in presentation of the leave application.

¶21

On perusal of the Stamp Report it appears that there exists a delay of 11 days in presentation of petition.

¶22

Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and the grounds taken in the I.A, the delay in filing the application is condoned.

¶23

Page 1 of 3.

¶24

Accordingly, the I.A stands disposed of.

¶25

CRLLP No.14 of 2009

¶26

Heard Mr.Sangram Das, learned Additional Standing counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the privateOpposite Party. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶27

The present application has been filed under Section 378(1) (3) of the Cr.P.C thereby challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore in T.R No.45 of 2007 on 18.10.2008. The abovenoted Vigilance case was initiated against the private-Opposite Party for alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶28

Mr.Sangram Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Petitioner at the outset referred to the appeal memo as submitted before this Court and contended that there are good grounds to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner, while expounding upon taking through the grounds in the leave petition, submitted that the ground Nos.I to VIII are good grounds to grant leave to the State-Petitioner to prefer an appeal against the acquittal.

¶29

Learned counsel for the private-Opposite Party on the other hand submitted that the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore by virtue of a detailed judgment has discussed the evidence and has arrived at the conclusion that the Opposite Party was not guilty. He also pointed out the lacuna and latches found out by the learned trial court in the evidence of the prosecution and

¶30

Page 2 of 3.

¶31

Anil

¶32

the same has been specifically referred to in the impugned judgment. Eventually, the learned trial court has concluded that there is no evidence at all with regard to the demand made by the accused on the alleged date of trap and there are no other witnesses who have been examined to support the aforesaid demand of alleged money. Thus, the trial court upon a detailed discussion of the evidence has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the factum of demand of bribe which is the backbone of a case of this nature.

¶33

In view of the detailed discussion in the impugned judgment, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned trial court, that too after expiry of more than one and half decades. Accordingly, the leave application stands dismissed.

¶34

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶35

Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 3.

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-Nov-2025 17:07:12

State of Orissa v. Raghunath Pradhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Orissa v. Raghunath Pradhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lokanath Mishra Vs Deo Ranjan Kumar Singh, IAS

Ajaya Das Vs Arun Bothra,Chairman Cum M.D of Osrtc

Lingaraj Behera Vs Anu Garg, I.A.S.

Tapas Kumar Dash Vs Arindum Dash

Sudhansu Kumar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Rajesh Jindal Vs Sashi Sankar Ray