IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.42 of 2017 State of Odisha …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Sangram Das, SC for the Department of Vigilance -versus- Kartik Chandra Chand …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Rajesh Ranjan Sahoo, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. ORDER 13.02.2026 04. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The Petitioner / Complainant has filed this application under Section 378(1) & (3) of the Cr.P.C for granting leave to prefer appeal (GCRLA) against the judgment / order dated 28.12.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore in T.R. No.100 of 2007 arising out of Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.7/2002 thereby acquitting the Opposite Party from the charges levelled against him. 3. Heard. 4. The brief fact of the case in brevity remains:- (i) Based on the allegation of taking bribe from the P.W. No.6 in order to provide electricity connection to the house of his uncle on 07.03.2002 necessary vigilance proceeding vide Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.7/2002 was initiated Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Feb-2026 18:06:39 Signature Not Verified against the Opposite Party who was serving as a Junior Engineer at that point of time. Accordingly, the above noted T.R. Case arising out of the Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.7/2002 was registered on the file of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Baleswar. (ii) Upon institution of the said T.R. Case, the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Baleswar providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, found the Opposite Party not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accordingly, the Opposite Party was acquitted from all the charges levelled against him vide judgment / order dated 28.12.2016 passed in the above noted T.R. Case. 5. Challenging the impugned judgment/ order dated 28.12.2016, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that though the above noted proceeding was instituted based on the allegation / complaint of P.W. No.6, he and the other witness P.W.3 turned hostile during course of examination. Hence, despite best efforts of the Vigilance Officials, the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Baleswar acquitted the Opposite Party without even paying any attention to the documents and other materials produced by the concerned Officials of the Vigilance Department at Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Feb-2026 18:06:39 Signature Not Verified the relevant point of time. He also draws the attention of this Court to the Ground Nos.D & H which are extracted herein below:- D. For that, in view of the availability of clinching piece of evidence on record particularly the trustworthy evidence of TLO (P.W.7), Magestrial witness (P.W.5), Seizure witness (P.W.4) who unerringly proved the guilt of the accused in demanding, accepting bribe and recovery of the illegal gratification from the accused, the learned Trial Court ought to have been held that the accused being a public servant on 07.03.2002 demanded gratification of Rs.1,000/- from the P.W.6 as reward to show him official favour to provide electric service connection to the house of his Uncle and he obtained such pecuniary advantage for himself by abusing his position as a public servant and committed the offence of criminal misconduct. Thus, the impugned order of acquittal being legally unsustainable, is liable to be set aside. H. For that, in view of the settled legal position that once the amount is found in the possession of the accused, the burden shifts on him to explain the circumstances to prove his innocence as contemplated U/s. 20 of the Act and the failure of the Opp. Party in adducing any evidence whatsoever to prove the contrary that the tainted bribe money was intentionally given by P.W.6, except a suggestion to that effect, the learned trial court ought to have held that the opp. Party is guilty of offence U/S.7 and 13(1)(d)(ii)r/w. 13(2) of the Act as the recovery of tainted notes from Opp. Party proves his guilty conduct in view of the presumption arising U/S.20 of the Act which has Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Feb-2026 18:06:39 Signature Not Verified not been rebutted. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner and looking to the averments made in this CRLLP, this Court is of the view that in a trap case success of the case depends on presence of the witnesses. In the present context, the P.W. No.6 based on whose complaint the above noted Vigilance Proceeding was instituted against the Opposite Party and also the other vital witness i.e. P.W. No.3, have turned hostile. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in the trap case since the P.W. Nos.3 & 6 have turned hostile, the case loses its roots. This Court, therefore, finds no perversity in the impugned judgment dated 28.12.2016 passed in the above noted T.R. Case because of lack of evidentiary strength. 7. This CRLLP is, accordingly, dismissed. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta Designation: Personal Assistant