Police ASI Accused Of Rs 300 Bribe Keeps Acquittal As Orissa HC Finds Trial Court’s View Possible

In brief

The question

1. Whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse, unreasonable, or based on a misreading or omission of material evidence so as to warrant appellate interference.

The court held

The High Court held that there were no compelling or substantial grounds to interfere with the acquittal or to grant leave to appeal.

It also directed

It dismissed the criminal leave petition, leaving the trial court’s acquittal in force.

01Facts

The respondent, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, was prosecuted for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.300 from the complainant and others in connection with a police case.

pp. 2–8

During the vigilance trap, the respondent’s hand-wash and pant-pocket wash turned pink, but the marked currency was not recovered.

pp. 2–8

The trial court acquitted him, citing discrepancies in the evidence concerning the demand and payment, the place and circumstances of the alleged transaction, and the disappearance of the currency.

pp. 2–8

The State sought leave to appeal against the acquittal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse, unreasonable, or based on a misreading or omission of material evidence so as to warrant appellate interference.

pp. 9–13

ii.2. Whether the evidence of demand and acceptance, including the positive hand-wash and pocket-wash results, justified granting leave to appeal despite the trial court’s findings.

pp. 9–10, 13

03Law Applied

Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 governs an appeal against acquittal and the grant of leave to appeal.

p. 2

The prosecution charge arose under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

p. 2, 7

Under Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa v. State of Karnataka, 2026 INSC 67, an acquittal should not be disturbed where the trial court’s view is a reasonably possible one; interference is warranted where the acquittal is perverse, rests on misreading or omission of material evidence, or is clearly unreasonable.

pp. 9–10

Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 104, establishes that acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and requires a higher threshold for appellate interference.

p. 11

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 378 Section 164 Section 248

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 13 Section 7

04Reasoning

The High Court considered the prosecution’s reliance on the complainant’s and overhearing witness’s evidence, the trap documents, and the positive chemical washes.

pp. 9–10

It held that these matters did not demonstrate that the trial court’s assessment was perverse or wholly unreasonable.

pp. 9–10

The trial court had identified material inconsistencies and evidentiary concerns, including the failure to recover the marked money and discrepancies about the transaction and the respondent’s movements.

pp. 5–8

Because the trial court’s conclusion remained a possible view on the evidence, the principles governing appeals against acquittal precluded substituting another view merely because it was also available.

pp. 12–13