Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha (Vig.) vs Rama Chandra Majhi .... Opp. Party on 5 December, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
GCRLA No.33 of 2011
State of Odisha (Vig.) .... Appellant
Mr. Sangram Das, S.C. (Vigilance)
-versus-
Rama Chandra Majhi .... Opp. Party
Mr. R. Panda, Advocate.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment: 05.12.2025
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
2. The present Appeal has been directed by the State challenging the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Jeypore in T.R. Case No.48 of 2007 pursuant to the leave granted by this Court vide order dated 25.04.2011 in CRLLP No.30 of 2009. The respondent in the trial in the aforesaid T.R. Case No.48 of 2007 being found not guilty has been acquitted from the charge faced on the offences under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. The prosecution case, as unfolded before the learned Trial Court, may be summarised thus: The Respondent, while serving as Industrial Promotion Officer (IPO) under Kashipur Block in the district of Rayagada, allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees Fifteen Hundred) from the Complainant as illegal gratification for accepting his loan application under the GCRLA No.33 of 2011 Page 1 of 12 PMRY Scheme. The Complainant had applied for such loan to develop his grocery business in his village. According to the prosecution, the Respondent was responsible for processing PMRY loan applications in the Kashipur Block, and when the Complainant approached him for the said purpose, he demanded Rs.1,500/- in advance and the remaining amount on the date of sanction, i.e., 06.06.2005. Aggrieved by such demand, the Complainant lodged a written report before the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Koraput, which was registered as Vigilance P.S. Case No.14 of 2004, pursuant to Ext.1. A trap was thereafter organised against the Respondent. A raiding party was constituted, and the Complainant produced cash of Rs.1,500/- before the Vigilance authorities. The currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and handed over to the Complainant for payment upon demand. After completion of the pre-trap requisite formalities and demonstration of the chemical reaction with sodium carbonate solution, the trap team proceeded to Kashipur Block. P.W.6 was directed to accompany the Complainant, observe the transaction, and signal the trap party. In accordance with the plan, the chemically treated money was handed over to the Respondent upon his demand. After he accepted the tainted currency, the trap team intervened, conducted hand wash and pocket wash tests, and recovered the tainted bribe amount from his possession. The seized materials and sample bottles were forwarded to the RFSL for chemical examination. Upon receiving the chemical examination report and after collecting all relevant documents, the Investigating Officer placed the materials before the sanctioning authority, discussed the case, obtained sanction for prosecution, and, upon GCRLA No.33 of 2011 Page 2 of 12 completion of investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the Respondent for trial.
4. The Respondent denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty, and stood trial. His defence was one of complete denial and false implication. He further contended that the Complainant, who used to supply milk to him, had earlier lent him Rs.2,000/- towards the medical expenses of his ailing father, of which Rs.500/- had already been repaid, and that the sum of Rs.1,500/- received on the date of occurrence was merely the repayment of the remaining balance.
5. The prosecution in order to establish the culpability of the Respondent examined eight witnesses in all, while the defence examined two witnesses in support of its case. While P.W.1 is the complainant, P.W.2 is an official witness and member of the trap party, P.W.3 is also an official witness and another member of the trap party. P.W.4 is also an official witness and witness to the seizure of documents, P.W.5 is the sanctioning authority, P.W.6 is the accompanying witness, P.W.7 is the I.O. and P.W.8 is the trap lying officer.
The brother of the Complainant has been examined as D.W.1 besides the accused who examined himself as D.W.2.
6. The learned Trial Court, upon evaluating the evidence adduced by both the prosecution and the defence, concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the demand and acceptance of bribe and had thus not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the accused-Respondent was acquitted of the charges.
GCRLA No.33 of 2011 Page 3 of 127. Mr. Sangram Das, learned counsel for the State (Vigilance), assailing the impugned judgment and order, submitted that the witnesses disbelieved by the learned Trial Court were, in fact, consistent and corroborative not only on the aspect of demand but also with respect to the acceptance of the bribe amount. With regard to the genesis of the complaint, he contended that the evidence clearly establishes that the Complainant had submitted an application under the PMRY Scheme for obtaining a loan. He further argued that the prosecution evidence is cogent and coherent in demonstrating that the Respondent, being the officer responsible for processing such applications, demanded illegal gratification and received a part thereof on the day the proposal was made, and later accepted Rs.1,500/- (Rupees Fifteen Hundred) during the trap. According to Mr. Das, the overhearing witness, the trap-laying witnesses, and the seizure witnesses have unequivocally narrated the manner in which the Complainant was introduced to them, the pre-trap procedures were conducted, the demand was made, the tainted currency was handed over, and the trap was successfully executed, culminating in the recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the Respondent. Thus, he submitted, the prosecution had substantially proved all essential ingredients of the offence. Mr. Das contended that the learned Trial Court discarded the prosecution case primarily on the ground that the Complainant did not support the prosecution and on an erroneous finding that the sanction for prosecution had been granted without proper application of mind and was therefore invalid. He submitted that such conclusions are unsustainable in law, being contrary to the evidence on record and settled legal principles. He GCRLA No.33 of 2011 Page 4 of 12 accordingly urged that the impugned judgment be set aside, the evidence be appreciated in its proper perspective, and the prosecution case be held proved beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in the conviction of the Respondent
8. Mr. R. Panda, learned counsel for the Respondent, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the State. He contended that the statements of the official witnesses are neither coherent nor mutually consistent, and that the Complainant's failure to support the prosecution on the crucial aspects of demand and acceptance casts a serious doubt on the very genesis of the prosecution case. He further argued that the inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses on material particulars relating to the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe were rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Court. According to Mr. Panda, the sanction for prosecution was not accorded in accordance with the settled principles of law, and the learned Trial Court was therefore justified in holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the findings of the learned Trial Court are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record and warrant no interference.
9. Having considered the rival submissions and carefully examined the evidence brought on record, it is pertinent to note the settled legal position governing offences under the PC Act. It is well settled that mere recovery of tainted money, by itself, is insufficient to establish the charges against an accused under the PC Act. To sustain a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act, it must be GCRLA No.33 of 2011 Page 5 of 12 proved beyond reasonable doubt that the public servant voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently reiterated that the demand for illegal gratification is sine qua non for establishing an offence under these provisions. A Five-Judge Bench in Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT, Delhi), reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731, reiterated this principle as follows:
"68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is GCRLA No.33 of 2011 Page 6 of 12 received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.
Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the Complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
GCRLA No.33 of 2011 Page 7 of 12(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Section 7 as well as Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act in the matter of P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. State of A.P reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152, while relying upon B. Jayaraj vs. State of A.P., reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55, as follows: -
"23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder".GCRLA No.33 of 2011 Page 8 of 12
11. From the exposition of law as noted above, it may be safely concluded that mere possession or recovery of tainted currency from a public servant, in the absence of proof of demand, is insufficient to establish an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Consequently, without evidence of a demand for illegal gratification, it cannot be held that the public servant employed corrupt or illegal means, or abused his position, to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage within the meaning of Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
It is equally well settled that direct evidence may not always be available to prove offences under the PC Act, and that a public servant may be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence where appropriate. Such a situation typically arises where the evidence of the Complainant or primary witness is unavailable, either due to death or because the witness has turned hostile, as recognised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
12. In the present case, it stands admitted that the decoy (Complainant) has turned hostile. However, the deposition of the Complainant reveals that he has supported the defence version rather than the allegations narrated in the written complaint lodged before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Koraput. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,000/- from the Respondent. In cross-examination, he further explained that he was known to the Respondent as he used to supply milk to him, and that he had taken the said amount for the medical expenses of his ailing father, acknowledging the issuance of a receipt marked as Ext.A. He admitted that although he had repaid Rs.500/-, he could not pay the balance amount of GCRLA No.33 of 2011 Page 9 of 12 Rs.1,500/-, leading to a heated exchange between them. He stated that the Respondent had threatened to file a case against him for non-repayment. According to him, one Biswambar Naik, who was not on cordial terms with the Respondent and was present at the time of the altercation, advised him to lodge a case with the assistance of the Vigilance Police. He further deposed that the written report (Ext.1) was scribed at the dictation of Vigilance officials and that the sum of Rs.1,500/-, which formed the trap money, belonged to the Vigilance Department and was handed over to him with instructions to offer it to the Respondent to "get rid of the loan" and thereby initiate a vigilance case.
Although it is well settled that the evidence of a hostile witness is not to be discarded in its entirety merely because he resiles from his earlier version, and that the portion supporting the prosecution may still be relied upon, a careful examination of the Complainant's testimony in the present case reveals nothing that advances the prosecution version. On the contrary, the Complainant has projected an entirely different narrative, fully aligned with the defence plea, that the amount received by the Respondent represented repayment of the balance of a personal loan earlier advanced to him. No part of his evidence establishes the foundational elements of demand or acceptance of illegal gratification.
The learned counsel for the State (Vigilance) contended that the defence plea, namely, that the Complainant used to supply milk to the Respondent, had borrowed Rs.2,000/- from him, had repaid Rs.500/-, and that the amount of Rs.1,500/- recovered during the trap was merely repayment of the remaining GCRLA No.33 of 2011 Page 10 of 12 balance, was a fresh and afterthought explanation, not raised at the earliest stage. However, the record does not support this contention. The Complainant himself, examined as P.W.1, has categorically deposed to these facts, produced the supporting receipt (Ext.A), and described the prior transaction in detail. His testimony, therefore, directly places these circumstances on the evidentiary record. In the face of such explicit deposition from the very decoy witness, it cannot be held that the defence plea constitutes a belated or extraneous explanation introduced for the first time at trial.
13. Keeping in view the principle that a witness may falter, but circumstances do not, this Court has examined the surrounding circumstances to ascertain whether any incriminating material exists that would discredit the defence plea that the amount received from the Complainant was merely repayment of a personal loan. On such analysis, no circumstance emerges which supports the prosecution version or contradicts the defence explanation.
14. Furthermore, the evidence of the Investigating Officer is notably silent on the very genesis of the complaint. His testimony does not establish that the Complainant's PMRY loan application had been placed before the Respondent, nor that its processing was withheld due to non-payment of illegal gratification. The I.O. further admitted that he had not seen any endorsement or signature of the Respondent on Ext.3, the PMRY application; that he had not seized the dispatch register from the Block office; and that he found no documentary material to show that Ext.3 had ever been forwarded by the Respondent to the DIC. He also GCRLA No.33 of 2011 Page 11 of 12 acknowledged that the IPO was not a member of the selection committee at either the sub-divisional or district level. The I.O. further conceded that he did not seize the Complainant's PMRY loan application. These omissions and admissions collectively weaken the prosecution case and fail to establish the foundational circumstances required to support the allegation of demand.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which constitute the gravamen of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The evidence of the Complainant, having departed from the prosecution case, offers no support to the allegation of demand; the surrounding circumstances do not furnish any incriminating material pointing towards a corrupt motive; and the omissions in the investigation further dilute the prosecution version. In the absence of proof of demand, mere recovery of tainted currency cannot sustain a conviction. The learned Trial Court, therefore, committed no error in extending the benefit of doubt to the Respondent. The findings recorded are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record and warrant no interference in appeal.
16. Accordingly, the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Jeypore in T.R. Case No. 48 of 2007 is hereby affirmed. The Appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.
Signature Not Verified (Chittaranjan Dash)Digitally Signed Judge Signed by: BIJAY Bijay KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 08-Dec-2025 10:35:38 GCRLA No.33 of 2011 Page 12 of 12