STATE OF ORISSA vs RABINARAYAN MOHANTY

THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP No.88 of 2012

CNR No.ODHC010303992012
(In the matter of an application under Section 378 (1) & (3) of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 )
State of Odisha (G.A. Deptt.) Petitioner
…….

-Versus-
Rabinarayan Mohanty Opposite Party
…….

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sangram Das, SC (Vigilance)

For the Opposite Party : Mr. B.N. Mohapatra, Advocate

CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing: 17.09.2026 : Date of Judgment: 31.10.2026

S.S. Mishra, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment
of acquittal dated 28.09.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge
(Vigilance), Cuttack in T.R. Case No.38 of 2007, whereby the learned
trial Court acquitted the respondent-Rabinarayan Mohanty of the charge
under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 7 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the P.C.
Act").

2. Heard Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel (Vigilance) for
the petitioner and Mr. B.N. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite-
party.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the opposite party was
serving as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at Balikuda Police
Station. According to the prosecution, one Surendra Padhi of Balikuda
had lodged a case against the informant-Umakanta Padhi and two others,
namely, Brahmananda Mohanty and Sarat Chandra Kanungo. In
connection with investigation of the said case, the opposite party had
visited their village on 24.10.1992 and, according to the prosecution, had
ascertained that the case was false. Subsequently, on 26.10.1992, the
informant and the other accused persons were called to Balikuda Police
Station through a Gramarakshi.
4. It is the further case of the prosecution that when the informant
and the other persons questioned the opposite party as to why they had
been called to the Police Station, the opposite party demanded Rs.1,000/-

Page 2 of 13

from them and, upon their request, ultimately agreed to accept Rs.300/-
for releasing them on bail. They were asked to bring the amount on a
particular day. Being aggrieved by the demand, the informant
approached the Vigilance authorities and lodged a written report before
the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack Division, Cuttack.
5. On the basis of the said report, Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.44
dated 30.10.1992 was registered for the offences under Section 13(2)
read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 7 of the P.C. Act. Inspector A.K.
Ray was entrusted with the investigation. A trap party was constituted
consisting of Vigilance officials, the informant and official witnesses.
The informant produced Rs.300/- consisting of three currency notes of
Rs.100/- denomination. The numbers of the currency notes were noted in
the preparation report and the informant was instructed to hand over the
tainted currency to the respondent only upon demand.
6. The trap party thereafter proceeded towards Balikuda Police
Station. The respondent was not initially present there and, therefore, the
members of the trap party waited for his arrival. At about 5.55 p.m., the
respondent arrived at the Police Station. According to the prosecution

Page 3 of 13

witnesses, after his arrival, the informant met him and thereafter,
pursuant to the pre-arranged arrangement, the tainted currency notes
were handed over by the informant to the opposite party. The
prosecution case is that the opposite party received the money by his left
hand and kept the same in the left side pocket of his full pant. The
overhearing witness thereafter relayed the pre-arranged signal to the
members of the trap party.
Upon receiving the signal, the Vigilance officials immediately
proceeded towards the respondent and apprehended him. According to
the prosecution witnesses, the respondent denied having received any
bribe. His hands and the left side pant pocket were thereafter subjected to
sodium carbonate wash and the resultant solution turned pink. The wash
solutions were collected and preserved separately. However, despite
search, the tainted currency notes could not be recovered from the
respondent.
7. To establish its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses.
P.W.1 was the official overhearing witness. P.W.2 was one of the
persons against whom the case had been registered at Balikuda Police

Page 4 of 13

Station along with the informant. P.W.3 was the then Superintendent of
Police, Jagatsinghpur, who accorded sanction for prosecution. P.W.4 was
the complainant. P.W.5 was the Gramarakshi attached to Balikuda Police
Station. P.W.6 was the then DSP, Vigilance, Cuttack Division, who was
associated with the trap proceedings. P.W.7 was the Trap Laying
Officer-cum-Investigating Officer. No witness was examined by the
defence.
8. Upon appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Court held that
the prosecution had failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable
doubt. The learned trial Court particularly took note of the fact that the
tainted money was not recovered from the respondent, that there were
discrepancies regarding the exact place and manner of payment of the
alleged bribe, and that the evidence regarding the respondent allegedly
handing over the money to P.W.5 was introduced at a later stage. The
learned trial Court also noticed the alleged relationship between P.W.5
and one Vigilance DSP, his alleged stay at the latter's house, the
recording of his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and his admission
that he had deposed in Court as instructed by Vigilance officials. The

Page 5 of 13

learned trial Court further noticed discrepancies as to whether the
respondent arrived at the Police Station in a jeep or on a motorcycle,
whether the transaction took place near a jeep or near a tree, and whether
the respondent was apprehended while sitting in a jeep or while
attempting to leave on a scooter. It was also held that the prosecution had
not satisfactorily established the circumstance in which the tainted
money disappeared from the possession of the respondent. Ultimately,
the learned trial Court extended the benefit of doubt to the respondent
and acquitted him under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The relevant part of the
aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein for ready reference:-
“ 32. So far as the alleged demand of bribe is concerned,
except the informant and P.W.2 no other prosecution
witnesses have stated as to what was the conversation
between the informant-decoy and the accused and what
transpires between them. P.W.1 could not say what was
the talk between the informant and the accused. It has
also been proved through P.W.7 that P.W.2 has not
stated before him during investigation that the accused
has demanded Rs. 1,000/- from the informant and the
accused threatened them that he will put all of them
behind the bar. Under the above circumstances and the
evidence discussed above, no reliance can safely be
placed on the discrepant and contradictory statement of
the prosecution witnesses.
In the result the accused is found not guilty for
commission of the offence U/s.13(2) read with Section

Page 6 of 13

13(1)(d) and 7 P.C. Act, 1988 and is acquitted therefrom
U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C.
”

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner-State contended that the
learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence of
P.W.1, the overhearing witness, and P.W.4, the complainant, which
clearly establishes the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by
the respondent. The evidence of these witnesses is duly corroborated by
the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses and the surrounding
circumstances, including the preparation report, detection report and the
positive hand-wash and pocket-wash of the respondent. According to the
learned counsel, the fact that the tainted currency could not ultimately be
recovered from the respondent cannot by itself demolish the prosecution
case, particularly when the evidence establishes that the respondent
received the tainted money and his hand-wash gave a positive reaction.

10. He further submitted that the learned trial Court committed an
error in giving undue importance to discrepancies regarding the precise
place of occurrence, the vehicle used by the respondent and other
peripheral matters, which, according to the petitioner, were minor
discrepancies naturally occurring with the passage of time and did not

Page 7 of 13

affect the core of the prosecution case. The learned counsel submitted
that the FIR, preparation report, detection report, chemical examination
report and the consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses, when
considered cumulatively, establish the demand and acceptance of the
bribe amount. The learned trial Court also failed to properly appreciate
the evidence of P.W.5 and the circumstances emerging from the trap
proceedings. According to the petitioner, the mere fact that the tainted
money was not recovered from the respondent could not constitute a
valid ground for acquittal when the prosecution evidence otherwise
established acceptance and the chemical examination furnished
corroborative evidence. It was, therefore, urged that the findings
recorded by the learned trial Court suffer from improper appreciation of
the evidence and that the order of acquittal deserves to be set aside.
11. This Court has carefully examined the judgment passed by the
learned trial Court, the reasons assigned therein, and the evidence
adduced by both the prosecution and the defence during trial. This
Court has also considered the grounds urged in the present appeal
and heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-State as

Page 8 of 13

well as the learned counsel for the respondent at length. The rival
submissions have been duly considered in the light of the materials
available on record.
12. Before interfering with an order of acquittal, this Court is also
required to bear in mind the well-settled principles governing an
appeal against acquittal. In Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v.
State of Karnataka & Ors. , reported in 2026 INSC 67 , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has reiterated that where 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. It has further been held that if the view taken by the trial
Court is a possible view based on the evidence available on record,
the appellate Court cannot overturn the order of acquittal merely
because another view is also possible. Interference is warranted only
when the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity, is
based on misreading or omission of material evidence, or where
compelling and substantial reasons exist showing that the acquittal is

Page 9 of 13

clearly unreasonable. The relevant part of the aforesaid judgment is
reproduced herein for ready reference:-
“29. From the aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court,
it can be said that if two reasonable conclusions are
possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the
Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of
acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. Further, if the view
taken is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot
overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another
view was also possible. The following principles have to
be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while dealing with
the appeals against an order of acquittal:
(a) whether the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent
perversity;
(b) whether the judgment is based on misreading/omission
to consider the material evidence on record;
(c) an order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when
there are “compelling and substantial reasons” for doing
so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a
compelling reason for interference.
(d) the appellate court, while deciding an appeal against
acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to
consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a
possible view which could have been taken on the basis of
the evidence on record;
(e) if the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court
cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that
another view was also possible; and
(f) the appellate court can interfere with the order of
acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only
conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the
evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was
proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion
was possible.
”


Page 10 of 13

Equally, in Mallappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka , reported in
2024 INSC 104
, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
presumption of innocence, which every accused enjoys during trial, gets
strengthened and concretized once the trial culminates in an order of
acquittal. Consequently, while exercising appellate jurisdiction against
an acquittal, a higher threshold is required to rebut such reinforced
presumption. Unless the findings recorded by the trial Court are
manifestly unsustainable or perverse, the appellate Court ought to
exercise great restraint in upsetting the acquittal. It was held thus:-
“24. We may firstly discuss the position of law
regarding the scope of intervention in a criminal
appeal. For, that is the foundation of this challenge. It
is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that
there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused, unless proven guilty. The presumption
continues at all stages of the trial and finally
culminates into a fact when the case ends in acquittal.
The presumption of innocence gets concretized when
the case ends in acquittal. It is so because once the
Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on
record, finds that the accused was not guilty, the
presumption gets strengthened and a higher threshold
is expected to rebut the same in appeal.”

13. The appellate jurisdiction against an order of acquittal is,
therefore, not intended to facilitate a fresh substitution of the opinion of

Page 11 of 13

the trial Court merely because a different view on the evidence is
Tulasareddi
conceivable. As reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
@ Mudakappa & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (supra) , the
appellate Court must first satisfy itself that the judgment of acquittal is
vitiated by patent perversity, misreading or non-consideration of material
evidence, or is so unreasonable that no prudent person could have
arrived at such a conclusion. Equally, as held in Mallappa & Ors. v.
State of Karnataka (supra) , the reinforced presumption of innocence
following an acquittal places a higher threshold upon the appellate Court
before upsetting the findings recorded by the trial Court. Thus, unless the
conclusions reached by the trial Court are wholly unsustainable on the
evidence available on record, judicial restraint rather than substitution of
views remains the governing principle in an appeal against acquittal.
Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, this Court
finds that the appreciation of evidence by the learned trial Court cannot
be said to be either perverse or wholly unreasonable. Merely because
another view may also be possible, the same cannot furnish a ground to
reverse the acquittal in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

Page 12 of 13

14. At this distant point in time, the absence of compelling and
substantial reasons warranting interference, reversal of the acquittal
would itself occasion serious prejudice and would be a travesty of
justice. At this belated stage, presumption of innocence prevailed in
favour of the opposite party for more than 15 years, as he was acquitted
by the Court below. Reversing such presumption at this stage would not
only be harsh, but it would be against the cardinal principle of
reformatory criminal jurisprudence. This Court, therefore, finds no legal
or factual justification to unsettle the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal
passed by the learned trial Court. In view of the aforementioned, this
Court is not inclined to grant leave against the judgment of acquittal
impugned herein.
15. Accordingly, the CRLLP stands dismissed.

(S.S. Mishra)
Judge

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
st
Dated the 31 October, 2026/Ashok
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB
MOHAPATRA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 05-Nov-2026 19:59:15

Page 13 of 13