Orissa HC Leaves Retired Revenue Inspector’s Acquittal Intact In ₹300 Bribe Case, Finding Trial Court’s Doubts On Demand And Acceptance A Possible View

The complainant had applied for a legal heir certificate, and his application was referred to the respondent, a Revenue Inspector, for enquiry.

The prosecution alleged that the respondent demanded ₹300 to submit the enquiry report and accepted the money during a Vigilance trap; the tainted currency was recovered, and the hand-wash and shirt-pocket-wash tests were positive.

The trial court found inconsistencies in the evidence of demand and acceptance and acquitted the respondent under Section 248(1) CrPC, holding that recovery and chemical-test evidence did not, without reliable proof of demand and voluntary acceptance, establish the charged offences.

The State sought leave to appeal, contending that the evidence and the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act supported conviction.

Under the principles governing appeals against acquittal, where two reasonable views are possible, the appellate court should not disturb the trial court’s acquittal if its view is a possible one; interference is warranted where the acquittal is perverse, rests on misreading or omission of material evidence, or is clearly unreasonable (Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa v. State of Karnataka, as cited at pp. 8–10).

An acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and places a higher threshold on an appellate court seeking to overturn it (Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, as cited at pp. 10–11).

The charges arose under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; the State also relied on Section 20’s presumption, citing T. Shankar Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh.

The court’s stated basis for decision, however, was the standard governing appellate review of acquittals.

The High Court considered the trial court’s assessment of the alleged demand and acceptance, including the inconsistencies in the complainant’s account and the lack of satisfactory corroboration from the overhearing witness.

Although the recovery and chemical-test results were accepted, the trial court had found them insufficient, in the absence of reliable proof of demand and voluntary acceptance, to establish guilt.

The High Court held that this assessment was neither perverse nor wholly unreasonable.

Applying the reinforced presumption of innocence and the restraint required in an appeal against acquittal, it concluded that the possibility of another view did not justify interference.

The State’s CRLLP was dismissed.