Orissa HC Refuses State Leave To Appeal Clerk’s Acquittal In Retired Teacher’s Rs 500 GPF Bribe Case, Citing Doubt Over Demand

The State sought leave under Section 378 CrPC to challenge the Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar’s judgment acquitting Bhagabati Prasad Roy of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), punishable under Section 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The prosecution alleged that Roy, a Dealing Assistant-cum-Clerk, demanded and accepted ₹500 from a retired teacher to process his GPF withdrawal; the tainted currency was recovered, and the hand-wash and pocket-wash tests were positive.

The trial court found the evidence of demand insufficient, noting inconsistencies about the trap and transaction and evidence supporting the defence account that the notes had been thrust into Roy’s pocket.

The State challenged that assessment, relying on the complainant’s and trap witnesses’ evidence and the corroborative recovery and chemical tests.

Section 378 CrPC governs an appeal against acquittal. The court applied the principle that where two reasonable views are available, an appellate court should not disturb the trial court’s acquittal if its view is possible on the evidence; interference is warranted where the acquittal is perverse, clearly unreasonable, or rests on a misreading or omission of material evidence, or where compelling and substantial reasons exist (*Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.*, 2026 INSC 67).

It also applied the rule that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and requires a higher threshold for appellate reversal (*Mallappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka*, 2024 INSC 104).

The alleged offences were under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), punishable under Section 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The High Court considered the trial court’s assessment of the alleged demand and acceptance alongside the discrepancies concerning the trap’s time, place, and participants’ movements, the evidence about the GPF file, and the defence evidence concerning the alleged thrusting of the notes.

It held that recovery of the tainted currency and positive wash tests did not, in the circumstances, make the trial court’s view perverse or wholly unreasonable. Because the trial court’s conclusion was a possible view on the record, the State had not established the compelling grounds required to overcome the reinforced presumption of innocence.

The criminal leave petition was dismissed.