Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No. 115 of 2017 (In the matter of an application under Section 419(4) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 378(4) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973). State of Odisha (Vigilance) …. Appellant (s) -versus- Gyanendra Kumar Patra …. Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Appellant (s) : Mr. Sangram Das., SC For the Department of Vigilance. For Respondent (s) : Mr. Ashok Mohanty, (Sr. Adv), Along with associates. . CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-21.04.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-15.05.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Appellant has filed the instant Criminal Appeal under Section 378(1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 419(1) & (3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the appellant jurisdiction of this Court. The appeal is preferred against the Judgment dated 24.04.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balangir in C.T.R. Case No. 10/2011, whereby the Respondent has been acquitted for the offence committed under Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 2 Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) & Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) On 14.10.2009, the complainant/decoy submitted a written report vide Ext. No.1 before S.P., Vigilance, Sambalpur inter alia alleging that he was serving as a Welfare Extension Officer (W.E.O) at Tarva Block and had been placed under suspension/supervision with effect from 10.09.2009 on the allegation that he was not regularly visiting the Higher Secondary Ashram School, Charvata in discharge of his official duties. (ii) Thereafter, the P.W.1 challenged that order of his suspension by filling an application/case before the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar. During the pendency of the said proceeding before the learned Tribunal, the P.W.1 also submitted a grievance petition before the Collector, Sonpur seeking redressal of his grievance and reinstatement in service. Pursuant thereto, the Collector, Sonepur directed the Opp. Party, who was then serving as the D.W.O, Sonepur, to take necessary steps with regard to the reinstatement of P.W.1 in service. (iii) That, thereafter, the complainant approached the Opp. Party on different occasions and requested him to process and place his Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 3 file before the Collector for consideration of his reinstatement. However, it is alleged that the Opp. Party demanded an illegal gratification/bribe amounting to Rs.10,000/- from the complainant as a quid pro quo for processing the file and placing the same before the Collector. (iv) On 12.10.2009, the Opp. Party allegedly instructed the complainant to come along with the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- on 15.10.2009 for the purpose of handing over the same. Finding no other efficacious alternative and being unwilling to succumb to the illegal demand, the complainant reported the matter on 14.10.2009 before the S.P., Vigilance, Sambalpur by submitting a written complaint. Consequent upon receipt of the said complaint, a vigilance case was registered and the matter was directed to be taken up for investigation in accordance with law. (v) Thereafter, the decoy was instructed by the Vigilance Police to appear at about 7:00 A.M. on 15.10.2009 along with the proposed bribe amount. Accordingly, on the said date, the decoy produced the tainted currency notes consisting of 20 numbers of Rs 500/- denomination notes amounting to Rs 10,000/- before the Vigilance officials. One of the accompanying witnesses thereafter carefully noted down the serial numbers of the said currency notes on a separate sheet of paper for the purpose of future identification and retained the same in his custody. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 4 (vi) During the pre-trap preparation held on 15.10.2009 at the Vigilance Unit Office, Sonepur, the decoy/complainant was introduced to the official witnesses and members of the raiding party, whereupon he narrated in detail the allegations made against the Opposite Party and the circumstances leading to the demand of illegal gratification. It is further stated that, during the said pre-trap assembly, a Vigilance staff member demonstrated the procedure relating to the trap operation and handling of the tainted currency notes before the members of the raiding team and the witnesses at the Vigilance Unit Office. (vii) Thereafter, Sodium Carbonate Solution was prepared by the Vigilance officials for the purpose of conducting the trap procedure. The currency notes produced by the decoy were duly treated with Phenolphthalein Powder and, after completion of the necessary demonstration, the tainted currency notes were handed over to the complainant/decoy with specific instructions to deliver the same to the accused person only upon demand. It is further stated that P.W.2 was selected and deputed as the overhearing witness to accompany the decoy to the place of transaction and to observe the conversation and events relating to the alleged demand and acceptance of the bribe amount. (viii) That, pursuant to the pre-trap arrangement, P.W.1 and P.W.2 proceeded towards the office of the District Welfare Officer Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 5 (D.W.O.) on a motorcycle. Upon reaching the office premises, P.W.2, who had been deputed as the accompanying/overhearing witness, remained standing near the entrance door of the office chamber, while the decoy entered inside. It is alleged that the Opposite Party enquired from the decoy as to whether he had brought the demanded bribe amount. When the decoy replied in the affirmative, the Opposite Party allegedly instructed him to place the tainted currency notes on the glass table kept inside his office chamber. (ix) Thereafter, the decoy placed the tainted currency notes on the table of the accused/Opposite Party, whereupon the Opposite Party allegedly covered the said currency notes with a newspaper lying on the table. It is further alleged that the Opposite Party then directed the decoy to wait outside the office chamber. However, just as the decoy was about to leave the office, the Opposite Party opened the drawer of his office table, brought out an envelope therefrom and instructed the decoy to place the tainted currency notes inside the said envelope. Accordingly, the decoy kept the tainted notes inside the envelope and handed over the same to the Opposite Party, who allegedly received the envelope by his right hand and thereafter concealed it inside a file kept on his office table. (x) Thereafter, the complainant/decoy came out of the office chamber and informed the accompanying witness regarding the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 6 demand and acceptance of the tainted bribe amount by the Opposite Party. Pursuant thereto, P.W.2, being the accompanying/overhearing witness, conveyed the pre-arranged signal to the members of the Vigilance raiding party indicating successful completion of the alleged transaction. (xi) Thereafter, the complainant/decoy came out of the office chamber and intimated the accompanying witness, namely P.W.2, regarding the alleged demand and acceptance of the tainted bribe amount by the Opposite Party. Upon receiving such information, P.W.2 immediately gave the pre-determined signal to the members of the Vigilance raiding party, indicating that the alleged transaction had been completed. (xii) Immediately thereafter, the members of the Vigilance raiding party rushed to the spot and disclosed their identity to the Opposite Party. It is alleged that, upon seeing the Vigilance officials, the Opposite Party brought out the envelope containing the tainted currency notes and threw the same inside the office chamber. Subsequently, P.W.4 entered into the office chamber, recovered the said envelope and verified the serial numbers of the currency notes with the numbers earlier noted down in the pre-trap memorandum/sheet of paper, which were found to tally. Thereafter, the right-hand wash of the Opposite Party was taken in Sodium Carbonate Solution, which allegedly turned pink in colour, indicating contact with Phenolphthalein Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 7 Powder. Subsequently, a detection report was prepared at the spot in accordance with the trap procedure. (xiii) Upon, completion of the investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted charge-sheet against the Opposite Party for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Pursuant thereto, the learned Trial Court took cognizance of the said offences and the matter proceeded to trial before the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Balangir. (xiv) However, it is alleged that the learned Trial Court, without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, disbelieved the prosecution case and rebutted the statutory presumption available under Section 20 of the Act. Consequently, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, the learned Special Judge acquitted the Opposite Party of all the charges levelled against him. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by way of the present criminal appeal. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT: 3. The learned counsel for the Appellant respectfully and earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 8 (i) The Appellants submits that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Balangir, whereby the appellant has been acquitted, is wholly erroneous, unsustainable both on facts and in law, and is liable to be set aside. (ii) The Appellant further submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the materials and evidences available on record and thereby erroneously recorded the order of acquital. It is contended that the learned Court below has not applied the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence and the settled principles governing appreciation of evidence, as a result of which the impugned judgment has become legally unsustainable. (iii) The Appellants contends that the foundational and indispensable requirement for constituting an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is the clear proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant concerned. It is submitted that, in the present case, the decoy witness, namely P.W.1, has fully supported the prosecution case by categorically deposing about the specific demand of illegal gratification made by the Opposite Party as well as the conscious acceptance of the tainted bribe amount by him. According to the Appellant, such evidence, coupled with the surrounding circumstances and trap proceedings, Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 9 sufficiently establishes the essential ingredients of the alleged offence. (iv) The Appellant further contends that the accompanying/shadow witness, namely P.W.2, has also categorically supported the prosecution case in his testimony by stating that the hand wash of the Opposite Party, when subjected to the Sodium Carbonate Solution test, turned pink in colour, thereby indicating contact with the tainted currency notes treated with Phenolphthalein Powder. It is further submitted that even the wash taken from the glass table yielded a similar result. The Appellant also contends that the serial numbers of the tainted currency notes recovered during the trap operation were duly verified and found to tally with the numbers previously noted in the pre-trap memorandum, thereby lending corroboration to the prosecution case regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. (v) The Appellant submits that the Opp. Party has miserably failed to rebut or dislodge the statutory presumption available under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is further contended that the Trap Laying Officer (T.L.O.), namely P.W.5, has also categorically deposed that the right-hand fingers of the Opposite Party, upon being subjected to chemical examination, turned pink in colour, thereby corroborating the prosecution case regarding handling and acceptance of the tainted currency notes. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 10 (vi) In view of the aforesaid circumstances and the evidence available on record, the Appellant submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal is founded upon perverse findings and improper appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Court, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside by this Court. (vii) The Appellant further contends that the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution, when read conjointly with the surrounding circumstances and documentary evidence relating to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, clearly and unerringly points towards the culpability of the Opp. Party. It is submitted that the evidence on record forms a complete chain of circumstances establishing the guilt of the Opp. Party beyond all reasonable doubt and, therefore, the learned Trial Court erred in recording an order of acquittal despite the existence of cogent and convincing evidence against the accused. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the submission that the present CRLLP deserves to be rejected in limine. (i) The Respondent submits that, the learned Special Judge, Vigilance upon proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has rightly passed the impugned judgment of acquittal against the Respondent. The findings recorded by the learned Judge are well-reasoned, based on cogent and credible evidence. Therefore, it is humbly Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 11 prayed that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance be upheld and the appeal preferred by the Appellant be dismissed. (ii) It is vehemently contented on behalf of the Respondent that the learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the Respondent of the charges punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, upon holding that the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act stood successfully rebutted by the accused. It is submitted that the Respondent had been able to probabilise his defense and establish his case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, thereby effectively dislodging the prosecution version regarding the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. (iii) It is further submitted on behalf of the Respondent that, for proper appreciation of the matter by this Court, it is necessary to carefully examine the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses, namely the complainant/decoy witness, the accompanying/overhearing/shadow witness and the official witnesses examined during trial. It is contended that, out of the six witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.1, who is the complainant/decoy and the most material witness to the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe, did not support the prosecution case during trial and was consequently declared Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 12 hostile, thereby substantially weakening the very foundation of the prosecution case. (iv) The Respondent further submits that the most crucial aspect requiring consideration in the present case is that, admittedly, the accused had never physically touched the tainted currency notes, which were allegedly kept inside an envelope by the decoy himself. In such circumstances, the Respondent contends that the alleged turning of the hand wash of the accused into pink colour creates a serious doubt regarding the fairness and genuineness of the trap proceedings. According to the Respondent, such an unusual circumstance gives rise to the possibility of manipulation or foul play during the trap operation, for which the prosecution is under a legal obligation to furnish a satisfactory and convincing explanation. (v) The Respondent contends that the P.W.4, in his examination-in- chief, made statements which materially contradicted the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 by stating that the accused had thrown the tainted currency notes through the window and that, pursuant to the direction of the D.S.P., a constable was asked to recover the envelope containing the money lying outside the window. (vi) It is further submitted that P.W.4, during his cross-examination, reiterated that the constable had picked up the envelope from outside the window and not from inside the office chamber as Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 13 alleged by the prosecution witnesses. According to the Respondent, such material contradictions with regard to the place and manner of recovery of the tainted currency notes create serious doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution story and do not lend support to the prosecution case regarding conscious possession and acceptance of the alleged bribe amount by the accused. IV. FINDINGS OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), BOLANGIR: 5. The learned Special Judge, Vigilance framed charges under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988, alleging that the Opp. Party has not committed the alleged offence. Upon conclusion of the trial and appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it was found that the Opp. Party was not guilty and accordingly acquitted him. 6. Upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned Special Judge came to hold that sufficient and cogent materials were not available to substantiate the charges framed against the Opp. Party. On a careful scrutiny and evaluation of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Court arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish any conscious demand, acceptance or transaction of the tainted bribe money by the Opp. Party. Accordingly, the learned Special Court, Vigilance held that the charges framed against the accused under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 7 of Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 14 the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and consequently acquitted the Opp. Party of the said offences. 7. The learned Court held that the law is well settled that once the tainted money is recovered from the possession of the accused, a statutory presumption arises that the accused had demanded and accepted the said amount as illegal gratification. However, the learned Court further observed that the presumption contemplated under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is rebuttable in nature, and the accused is entitled to rebut such presumption by establishing a probable defence on the basis of preponderance of probabilities from the materials available on record. 8. Further, the learned Court held that the defence is not required to establish its case with the same degree of strictness and rigor as is expected from the prosecution in a criminal trial. It was observed that the accused is only required to establish a probable defence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The learned Court further held that the evidence adduced on behalf of the defence, coupled with the material contradictions elicited during the cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses, was sufficient to successfully rebut the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequently, the learned Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 15 and, accordingly, acquitted the accused of the offences alleged against him. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid findings and upon an overall appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned Special Judge, Vigilance came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to successfully establish the offences alleged against the accused under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequently, extending the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused, the learned Trial Court recorded an order of acquittal in favour of the Opp. Party. V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 10. The offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, particularly in cases arising out of a trap proceedings wherein a public servant is alleged to have been apprehended red-handed while accepting illegal gratification, stand on a distinct legal footing. In such cases, the foundational and indispensable requirement for establishing the prosecution case is the proof of demand of illegal gratification, which constitutes the gravamen and sine qua non of the alleged offence. 11. In such circumstances, the factum of demand cannot be presumed merely from recovery or acceptance of tainted currency notes, but is required to be independently verified and affirmatively established by the Investigating Agency through cogent, reliable, Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 16 trustworthy, and convincing evidence. Unless the prosecution succeeds in proving the prior demand and conscious acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, the mere recovery of money from the possession of the accused would not, by itself, be sufficient to bring home the charge under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 12. It is a well-settled proposition of law that mere recovery of tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused, divorced from the proof of prior demand and conscious acceptance of illegal gratification, would not be sufficient to sustain the prosecution case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The proof of demand constitutes the foundational and indispensable ingredient of the offence, and in absence thereof, the entire edifice of the prosecution case collapses. 13. The prosecution is, therefore, under a legal obligation to establish, through clear, cogent, reliable, and convincing evidence, that there was a prior demand of illegal gratification coupled with its voluntary and conscious acceptance by the accused public servant. Failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the essential ingredient of “demand” would strike at the very root and substratum of the prosecution case and would prove fatal to the prosecution launched against the public servant. 14. It is a well-established practice and settled convention in trap proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act that the Trap Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 17 Laying Officer is expected to make sincere and reasonable efforts to verify the factum of demand of illegal gratification by the concerned public servant prior to initiating and laying the trap. Such verification assumes considerable significance, inasmuch as the demand of bribe constitutes the foundational ingredient of the alleged offence and forms the very basis for conducting the trap proceedings. 15. The verification of demand may be established through various legally admissible modes, including the contemporaneous conversation and interaction between the decoy complainant and the suspect public servant, whether oral, electronic, or otherwise recorded in accordance with law. Such material, when properly proved and corroborated, constitutes an important piece of evidence for establishing the prior demand of illegal gratification and lending credibility to the prosecution case. 16. In the present case, the Court extended the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused public servant, inasmuch as the prosecution failed to establish the charges levelled against him beyond all reasonable doubt, as required under law. The evidence brought on record was found insufficient to conclusively prove the foundational ingredients of the alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 17. In particular, the essential ingredient relating to the prior demand of illegal gratification remained unverified and was not established Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 18 by the Investigating Officer through cogent, reliable, and legally admissible evidence. The prosecution having failed to prove the factum of demand in the manner known to law, the very substratum of the prosecution case stood seriously undermined, thereby entitling the accused public servant to the benefit of doubt. 18. It further appears from the materials available on record that no adequate or sincere effort was made by the Investigating Agency to independently corroborate the alleged demand of illegal gratification through the shadow witness, despite the fact that the said witness had specifically been instructed to observe, overhear, and verify the conversation and transaction pertaining to the alleged acceptance of bribe by the accused public servant. The failure of the prosecution to secure reliable corroboration from such a material witness casts a serious doubt upon the veracity and credibility of the prosecution case. 19. In the absence of clear, cogent, convincing, and trustworthy evidence establishing the prior demand and conscious acceptance of illegal gratification, the foundational ingredients constituting the alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act remained unproved. Consequently, the prosecution case stood materially weakened, thereby entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt in accordance with the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. 20. The prosecution case further suffers from a serious legal infirmity inasmuch as, despite being fully conscious of the fact that the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 19 shadow witness was an interested witness owing to his close relationship and association with the decoy complainant, the Investigating Officer failed to disassociate or exclude him from the trap proceedings so as to ensure fairness, impartiality, and credibility of the investigation. 21. On the contrary, the said witness was specifically entrusted with the responsibility of accompanying the decoy, overseeing the alleged transaction, and overhearing the conversation relating to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused public servant. The reliance placed upon an interested witness for corroboration of such a crucial and foundational aspect of the prosecution case, without securing independent and impartial corroborative evidence, seriously affects the credibility and reliability of the prosecution version and creates a substantial doubt regarding the fairness of the trap proceedings. 22. Such a course adopted by the Investigating Agency casts a serious shadow upon the fairness and credibility of the prosecution case, particularly when the testimony of the shadow witness constituted a material and vital piece of evidence for establishing the foundational facts relating to the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused public servant. The manner in which the investigation was conducted creates a reasonable apprehension regarding the reliability and sanctity of the trap proceedings. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 20 23. This Court also places reliance upon the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Neeraj Datta v. State (NCT of Delhi)1, wherein it was held that “For recording a conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, the prosecution has to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence or circumstantial evidence. In other words, to convict a person under the aforesaid provision demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non.” “88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussions is summarized as under: 88.1.(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. 88.2.(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution has to first prove the demand the illegal gratification and subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. The fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. 88.3.(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. 1 (2023) 4 SCC 731 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 21 88.5.(e) the presumption of fact with regard to the demand an acceptance or obtainment of any illegal gratification may be made by 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 a fat is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. 88.6.(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. 88.7.(g) Insofar 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 the motive or reward as mentioned in the said section. The said presumption has to be raised by the Court as the legal presumption or 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. 88.(h) we clarify that the resumption in law under the Section 20 of the Act is distinct from the presumption of the fact referred to above in sub-para 88.5(e), above, as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 22 24. In the present case in hand, P.W.4, during the course of his examination-in-chief, made statements which materially contradicted and were inconsistent with the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 on crucial aspects of the prosecution case. P.W.4 specifically deposed that the accused had thrown the tainted currency notes through the window and that, pursuant to the directions issued by the D.S.P., a constable was instructed to recover the envelope containing the tainted money from outside the window. 25. The aforesaid version of P.W.4 strikes at the very root of the prosecution case and creates a serious inconsistency regarding the manner of recovery and conscious possession of the tainted currency notes by the accused. Such material contradictions among the prosecution witnesses on vital particulars relating to the alleged acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification materially affect the credibility and reliability of the prosecution version and create a reasonable doubt with respect to the prosecution story as projected before the Court. 26. It is further seen that P.W.4, during the course of his cross- examination, categorically reiterated that the constable had recovered and picked up the envelope containing the tainted currency notes from outside the window and not from inside the office chamber, as alleged by the other prosecution witnesses. Such testimony of P.W.4 assumes considerable significance in view of Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 23 the material inconsistency emerging in the prosecution evidence with regard to the exact place and manner of recovery of the tainted money. 27. According to the Respondent, these material contradictions and inconsistencies strike at the very substratum of the prosecution case and create a serious doubt regarding the authenticity, reliability, and truthfulness of the prosecution story. The conflicting versions adduced by the prosecution witnesses fail to inspire confidence and do not satisfactorily establish the conscious possession, voluntary acceptance, and recovery of the alleged bribe amount from the accused in the manner projected by the prosecution. Consequently, the prosecution case suffers from material infirmities, thereby entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt in accordance with settled principles of criminal law. 28. Upon an overall and comprehensive appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court finds that the learned Special Judge, Vigilance has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution failed to satisfactorily and conclusively establish the charges alleged against the accused under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution evidence, when tested on the touchstone of legal scrutiny, was found insufficient to prove the foundational ingredients of the alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubt. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 24 29. The material contradictions, inconsistencies, and deficiencies appearing in the prosecution case created substantial doubt regarding the veracity and reliability of the allegations levelled against the accused. In such circumstances, the learned trial Court was fully justified in extending the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused and in recording an order of acquittal in favour of the Opposite Party. The impugned judgment of acquittal, being based upon proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, does not warrant interference. VI. CONCLUSION: 30. In view of the foregoing analysis and upon meticulous consideration of the material facts, evidence on record, and the attendant facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered and firm opinion that no ground whatsoever is made out warranting interference with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Court below. 31. Accordingly, the CRLLP, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. 32. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 15th May, 2026/