Orissa HC Declines State Leave To Appeal Police Officer’s Acquittal In Bribery Case After Informant Denied Demand

The State sought leave to appeal under Sections 378(1) and 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the respondent’s acquittal of offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The prosecution alleged that, while serving as Officer-in-Charge of Junagada Police Station, the respondent demanded illegal gratification from the informant and accepted a payment during a vigilance trap; the trap party recovered tainted currency, and the hand and pocket washes reportedly tested positive.

At trial, the informant (P.W.5) did not support the alleged demand, and the trial court found the accompanying witness’s account unreliable.

It held that recovery and the chemical test results did not establish the offence without reliable proof of demand, and acquitted the respondent.

Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), punishable under Section 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, formed the basis of the charges; the trial court considered reliable proof of demand necessary and held that recovery and chemical test results alone did not establish the alleged bribery.

The State also relied on the presumption under Section 20 of the Act in relation to the Section 7 charge.

Under Sections 378(1) and 378(3) CrPC, the High Court considered whether leave to appeal against the acquittal was warranted.

Applying Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa v. State of Karnataka, the Court held that an acquittal should not be disturbed where the trial court’s view is reasonably possible; interference is warranted where, among other things, the acquittal is perverse, rests on misreading or omission of material evidence, or is clearly unreasonable.

Relying also on Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, the Court noted that acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and requires a higher threshold for appellate interference.

The informant’s failure to support the prosecution on demand and the trial court’s doubts about the accompanying witness’s opportunity to hear and observe the alleged transaction provided a reasonable basis for finding the evidence insufficient.

In that evidentiary context, recovery of the currency and positive wash tests did not render the trial court’s conclusion perverse, notwithstanding the State’s argument that those circumstances and the Section 20 presumption supported the charge.

Applying the reinforced presumption of innocence and the restraint required in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court found no compelling basis to substitute another possible view for the trial court’s assessment.

It declined to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the CRLLP.