Orissa HC Refuses State Leave To Appeal Junior Engineer’s Acquittal In Rs 6,000 Bribe Case, As Demand Was Unproved Despite Tainted Cash Recovery

Saroj Kumar Nayak, a Junior Engineer, was accused of demanding ₹6,000 from a supplier to facilitate payment for supplied iron doors and windows.

A Vigilance trap was conducted, during which tainted currency was recovered and the hand and shirt-pocket washes tested positive.

The Special Judge acquitted Nayak of offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, finding demand and voluntary acceptance unproved.

The State sought leave to challenge the acquittal, arguing that the complainant’s evidence, recovery, chemical tests and statutory presumption supported conviction.

Under the principles governing appeals against acquittal, where two reasonable conclusions are possible on the evidence, the appellate court must not disturb the trial court’s view merely because another view is also available.

Interference is warranted where the acquittal is perverse, clearly unreasonable, or rests on misreading or omission of material evidence; the appellate court must find that guilt was the only conclusion available on the record.

The Court relied on Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 INSC 67, and Mallappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 104, which holds that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and requires a higher threshold for appellate reversal.

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 invoked Section 20 of that Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act in support of its challenge.

The trial court had identified inconsistencies in the complainant’s account of the alleged demands and relied on the accompanying witness’s evidence that the complainant thrust the money on Nayak despite his refusal, a version supported by the defence witness.

It also considered office records indicating that the required certificate had been furnished and the bill processed.

In that evidentiary context, the trial court treated recovery and positive chemical tests as insufficient, without reliable proof of demand and voluntary acceptance.

The High Court held that this assessment was a possible view and was neither perverse nor wholly unreasonable; the State’s arguments did not establish a basis to displace the reinforced presumption of innocence.

The State’s leave application, CRLLP No. 153 of 2013, was dismissed.