More Than 13 Years Later, Orissa HC Refuses State Leave To Appeal Doctor’s Acquittal In Alleged ₹500 Bribe Case

The State sought leave to appeal against the Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack’s judgment acquitting Dr. Parsuram Sahu, an Orthopaedic Specialist, of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The prosecution alleged that Sahu demanded and accepted Rs. 500 from the complainant for treating the complainant’s maternal grandfather.

In a trap, the tainted currency was recovered from Sahu, and the hand-wash test reportedly turned pink.

The complainant was not examined; the overhearing witness testified that he saw the payment but could not hear the conversation.

Sahu’s defence was that the money reimbursed car expenses for an earlier visit to the patient.

The trial court found demand unproved, accepted the defence explanation as sufficient to discharge the burden under Section 20, and acquitted him.

The State challenged that decision, arguing that the recovery, chemical test and other evidence supported the prosecution case.

Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must establish the ingredients of the charged offences; the trial court considered the statutory presumption under Section 20 in relation to the Section 7 charge.

On an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence is reinforced, and where the trial court’s view is a reasonable one supported by the evidence, an appellate court should not substitute another possible view. Interference is justified where the acquittal is perverse, unreasonable, or affected by misreading or omission of material evidence, or where compelling and substantial reasons require reversal. The Court applied these principles from Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa v. State of Karnataka and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka.

The High Court found no basis to disturb the trial court’s assessment. The complainant, whose evidence could have addressed the alleged demand, was not examined, and the overhearing witness could not hear the conversation between the complainant and Sahu.

Although the tainted money was recovered and the hand-wash test was positive, the trial court considered Sahu’s explanation that the payment was for car expenses and concluded that he had discharged the burden under Section 20.

The High Court held that the trial court’s view was a possible one and was neither perverse nor wholly unreasonable; the State’s arguments did not establish compelling grounds for appellate interference.

The State’s criminal leave petition was dismissed.