Odisha HC Denies State Leave To Appeal Officials’ Acquittal In Alleged Backdated Government-Land Patta Case, Finding Trial Court’s View Possible

The State sought leave to challenge the Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore’s judgment dated 30 June 2010 acquitting the accused of offences under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B IPC.

The prosecution alleged that, after final publication of the Record-of-Rights for Mouza-Ganeswarpur, settlement cases were antedated and used to secure pattas over Government land.

During trial, proceedings against Opposite Party No. 3 abated on his death.

The trial court found the allegations unproved and acquitted the accused, concluding that the evidence did not establish falsification, conversion of Government land, pecuniary advantage or conspiracy.

The State challenged that acquittal, arguing that the trial court had misappreciated material evidence.

Section 378(5) CrPC governs an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal.

The appellate court must respect the reinforced presumption of innocence following acquittal and should not interfere merely because another view of the evidence is possible; interference is justified where the acquittal is perverse, clearly unreasonable, or rests on misreading or non-consideration of material evidence.

The Court applied the principles stated in Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 INSC 67, and Mallappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 104.

The charged offences included Sections 13(2), 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B IPC.

The High Court held that the trial court’s assessment was a possible view of the evidence, not a perverse or wholly unreasonable one.

The trial court had found no cogent proof that the settlement cases were antedated or fabricated, that Government land had been converted into private holdings, or that the accused had obtained pecuniary advantage; it also noted that the impugned orders and records had not been shown to have been set aside or declared invalid by a competent authority.

Given those findings, and the governing restraint on appellate interference with acquittals, the State’s competing interpretation of the evidence did not provide a sufficient basis to grant leave.

The application for leave, CRLLP No. 32 of 2011, was dismissed.