Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.28 of 2023 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 378 (1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). State of Odisha (Vig.) …. Appellant (s) -versus- Nrusimhanath Sahu …. Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Arrangement Mode: For Appellant (s) : Mr. Sangram Das, Standing Counsel (for the Vigilance Department) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Purna Chandra Das, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING: 31.03.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -17.04.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Appellant–State is assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.11.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Jeypore, Koraput in G.R. Case No. 01 of 2014 (V) / T.R. No. 15 of 2014, arising out of Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No. 01 of 2014. I. FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Complainant (P.W.8), a retired Assistant Teacher, submitted sanction documents of the Accountant General, Odisha, Bhubaneswar along with pay Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:10:32 Signature Not Verified Page 2 withdrawal particulars, etc. for drawal of his gratuity, commutation pension, and other retiral benefits. In that connection, he contacted accused Nrusimhanath Sahu of the Koraput Treasury Office. The said accused, however, asked him to discuss the matter with accused Daud Jena, Accountant of the said office. 3. Accordingly, the Complainant met accused Daud Jena, who told him that he had to pay a bribe of Rs.2,000/- for accused Nrusimhanath Sahu and Rs.1,000/- for himself to get the work done. 4. On 09.01.2014, when the Complainant again met both the accused persons, they reiterated their demand and stated that unless the bribe was paid, the bills and pension papers would not be passed. 5. On 10.01.2014, when the Complainant approached accused Sahu, the accused enquired whether he had brought the demanded bribe money. When the Complainant denied, accused Sahu told him to give Rs.200/- for issuance of tokens. Upon payment of Rs.200/- by the Complainant, accused Sahu issued him three tokens of the Koraput Treasury. Thereafter, accused Daud Jena asked the Complainant to come with the demanded bribe so that the advice could be sent to the Bank. 6. Finding no alternative, the Complainant lodged a written FIR, which was registered as Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No.01 dated 10.01.2014. A trap team was then constituted, and Maheswar Sadangi (P.W.5), the Magisterial witness, along with Prasanta Kumar Panda (P.W.6), the overhearing witness, were requisitioned. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:10:32 Signature Not Verified Page 3 7. The Complainant narrated his complaint before the trap team and produced five G.C. notes of Rs.500/- each and five G.C. notes of Rs.100/- each. Maheswar Sadangi (P.W.5) noted down the serial numbers and denominations of the said G.C. notes on a plain paper and was directed to keep the same for comparison after detection. A demonstration showing the reaction of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate solution was conducted. Thereafter, the G.C. notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and handed over to the Complainant, kept in a fourfold paper. 8. Prasanta Kumar Panda (P.W.6) was directed to accompany the Complainant, overhear the conversation between the accused and the Complainant, witness the transaction of bribe money, and give a pre- arranged signal to the trap team members. Accordingly, a preparation report was prepared. 9. Thereafter, the Complainant went inside the Treasury Office. On seeing him, accused Daud Jena enquired whether he had brought the bribe money. When the Complainant answered in the affirmative, the accused pulled open the drawer of his office table and directed the Complainant to keep the bribe money therein. The Complainant accordingly kept the tainted money in the drawer of the accused. 10. On receiving the pre-arranged signal, the Vigilance team rushed to the spot. The right and left hand washes of the accused in sodium carbonate solution turned pink and light pink in colour. Maheswar Sadangi (P.W.5) compared the number and denomination of the G.C. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:10:32 Signature Not Verified Page 4 notes with those noted earlier and certified that the numbers tallied. A detection report was prepared. 11. During investigation, the I.O. examined the complainant and other witnesses. The samples/exhibits were sent to R.F.S.L., Berhampur, and the chemical examination report was received. Sanction for prosecution was obtained from the competent authority. The I.O. also got the statements of the Complainant/decoy and the overhearing witness recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Court. 12. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was submitted against the accused persons. 13. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. P.W.8 is the complainant, P.W.5 is the Magisterial witness, P.W.6 is the accompanying witness, P.W.9 is the Trap Laying Officer, and P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer. P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 are witnesses to the seizure. The prosecution relied upon documentary evidence marked Exts.1 to 46 and material objects marked M.O.-I to X. The accused persons neither adduced any oral evidence nor exhibited any documents in their defence. Their plea was one of complete denial, specifically that they neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from the Complainant. 14. The learned Court below, upon analysing the evidence on record, accepted the prosecution case insofar as accused No.1 Daud Jena is concerned and convicted him on the charges. However, the learned Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:10:32 Signature Not Verified Page 5 Court found that no bribe money was recovered from the possession of accused Nrusimhanath Sahu and that there was no evidence to show that he either demanded or accepted any bribe on the date of trap. Accordingly, the learned Court held that there was insufficient material to hold him guilty of the alleged offences and acquitted him. 15. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.11.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Jeypore, Koraput in G.R. Case No.01 of 2014 (V) / T.R. No.15 of 2014 arising out of Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No.01 of 2014, whereby accused No.2 has been acquitted, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal. II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT: 16. Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. The Appellant–State submitted that the impugned judgment of acquittal is illegal, erroneous, perverse and against the weight of evidence on record, and is therefore liable to be set aside. ii. The entire judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court is the result of complete non-application of judicial mind to the evidence on record. In view of the ample evidence of overt acts constituting the offences under the Act, the learned trial court has grossly erred in acquitting the O.P. iii. The impugned judgment is based on faulty reasoning, as a result of which it has led to a gross miscarriage of justice. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:10:32 Signature Not Verified Page 6 iv. In view of the clinching evidence of the overhearing witness (P.W.6), the Trap Laying Officer (P.W.9), the decoy/complainant (P.W.8), and the Chemical Examination Report (Ext.P-44), which clearly establish the demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification, the learned trial Court ought to have held that both the accused persons, being public servants working as Senior Clerk and Accountant respectively in the District Treasury Office, Koraput on 10.01.2014, demanded and accepted Rs.3,000/- from the complainant as illegal gratification/undue advantage for the improper and dishonest performance of their official duty, namely processing and passing the pension papers of the complainant, thereby committing the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. v. There is no dispute that the tainted money was received and recovered from the possession of the accused persons. It is settled law that mere recovery of tainted money by itself may not be sufficient to convict. However, where the accused fails to satisfactorily explain the circumstances under which the tainted money came into his possession, a presumption under Section 20 of the Act arises that the same was received as illegal gratification. In the present case, the Opposite Parties have miserably failed to discharge such burden or rebut the said presumption and thereby the prosecution case stands strengthened. vi. In view of the settled legal position that the evidence of police witnesses cannot be brushed aside or discarded merely on the ground Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:10:32 Signature Not Verified Page 7 that they belong to the police department and are interested in the success of the case, and in view of the trustworthy evidence of the Trap Laying Officer (P.W.9), the shadow witness (P.W.6), the Magisterial witness (P.W.5) and the Investigating Officer (P.W.10), which is reliable and consistent, the learned trial Court has erred in not properly appreciating such evidence in its correct perspective. vii. The learned trial Court has committed grave illegality in accepting the bald plea of the Opposite Party regarding absence of demand of bribe money without any evidence in support thereof. When such plea stands falsified by the substantive evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Court below has erred in accepting the same. A fanciful plea without any corroboration cannot be a valid ground to discard the prosecution case. viii. In view of the settled legal position that once the tainted amount is found in the possession of the accused, the burden shifts upon him to explain the circumstances under which it came into his possession as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act, and in view of the failure of the Opposite Party to adduce any evidence whatsoever to prove the contrary or to show that the money was given without any demand, except a mere suggestion to that effect, the learned trial Court ought to have held that the Opposite Party is also guilty of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. The recovery of tainted money from the possession of the Opposite Party clearly establishes his culpable conduct in view of the statutory Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:10:32 Signature Not Verified Page 8 presumption under Section 20 of the Act, which has not been rebutted. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. ix. P.W.6, the overhearing witness, has supported the prosecution case with respect to the demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused/Opposite Parties. His evidence clearly establishes that upon the complainant entering the office room of accused Daud Jena, he remained near the entrance and overheard the conversation between them, following which the accused opened the drawer of his office table and directed the complainant to keep the tainted money therein, which was accordingly done. Thereafter, P.W.6 came out of the Treasury Office and gave the pre-arranged signal to the trap team members. x. P.W.9, the Trap Laying Officer, has also supported the prosecution case with regard to the recovery of the tainted money from the accused/Opposite Parties. His evidence establishes that the hand washes of accused Daud Jena were taken in sodium carbonate solution, which turned pink and light pink, thereby indicating contact with the tainted currency notes. He further stated that the tainted G.C. notes were recovered in presence of the official witness, who counted and compared the serial numbers and denominations and found them to be correct. In view of the aforesaid consistent and unshaken evidence of P.W.6, the overhearing witness, P.W.9, the Trap Laying Officer, and the Chemical Examination Report (Ext.P-44), which clearly establish the demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:10:32 Signature Not Verified Page 9 amount, the learned trial Court ought to have held the accused/Opposite Parties guilty of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. xi. The decoy/complainant (P.W.8) has also supported the prosecution case with regard to the demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted bribe money from the accused/Opposite Party. His evidence clearly establishes that he proceeded to the District Treasury Office, Koraput along with the overhearing witness and, upon meeting accused Daud Jena, the accused enquired whether he had brought the demanded bribe amount. On his answering in the affirmative, the accused demanded the money, whereupon the complainant handed over Rs.3,000/-. The accused then opened the drawer of his table and directed the complainant to keep the money therein, which was accordingly done. Upon enquiry regarding his bills, the accused informed him that the advice had been sent to the Bank for drawal. Thereafter, the overhearing witness gave the pre-arranged signal to the trap party, which immediately entered the office room of the accused. In view of the aforesaid clear and cogent evidence of P.W.8, which is duly corroborated by P.W.6 and P.W.9 as well as the recovery and chemical examination report, the prosecution has successfully established the demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification, and the learned trial Court has erred in not properly appreciating the same. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:10:32 Signature Not Verified Page 10 xii. In this regard, from the evidence on record, it is evident that both the accused persons had demanded bribe from the complainant. It further appears that as per the direction of both the accused persons, the bribe money was to be paid to accused Daud Jena on the date of trap. The evidence also discloses that both the accused persons had been harassing the complainant for months together in connection with release of his pension and retiral dues. There is sufficient evidence to show that both the accused persons had demanded illegal gratification from the complainant prior to the date of trap. When the bribe money was ultimately paid to one of the accused on the direction of both, the same amounts to constructive acceptance by both the accused persons. In view of the established demand and acceptance of bribe by accused Nrusimhanath Sahu from the complainant, the learned trial Court ought to have held him guilty along with the co-accused. The finding of the learned Court that no bribe money was recovered from his possession and that there was no evidence of demand or acceptance on the date of trap is erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record. The learned Court failed to appreciate that conviction can be based on other cogent evidence establishing demand and acceptance. Accordingly, the impugned order of acquittal is liable to be set aside. xiii. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that there is clear and consistent evidence of prior demand of illegal gratification by both the accused persons, as deposed by the complainant (P.W.8), which has Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:10:32 Signature Not Verified Page 11 remained unshaken. The said prior demand clearly establishes the continuity of demand culminating in the trap and has been erroneously ignored by the learned Court below, thereby vitiating the finding of acquittal. xiv. The learned trial Court erred in law in holding that absence of recovery of tainted money from accused No.2 is fatal to the prosecution case, ignoring the settled legal position that conviction can be sustained on proof of demand and acceptance even in absence of recovery from each accused. xv. The learned trial Court has failed to consider material evidence on record, particularly the consistent testimonies of P.W.6, P.W.8 and P.W.9, thereby rendering the findings perverse and unsustainable. III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT: 17. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. The learned trial Court found that there is no evidence to show that the Respondent either demanded the bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- from the complainant or accepted the same from him. In view of the settled principle of law that proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is sine qua non for establishing an offence under the Act, the learned trial Court held that there was no sufficient material to hold the Respondent guilty of the alleged offences and accordingly acquitted him. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:10:32 Signature Not Verified Page 12 ii. The complainant, in the FIR as well as in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has stated that prior to the occurrence there was a demand by the Respondent and a sum of Rs.200/- was paid to him. However, in his deposition before the learned trial Court, the complainant has stated that when he met the Respondent, the latter directed him to meet the other accused, namely Daud Jena, who told him that he had to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- for himself and Rs.2,000/- for the Respondent. This part of the evidence has not been corroborated by any other witness and, therefore, lacks supporting evidence. In the absence of such corroboration, it is difficult to sustain a conviction, as courts ordinarily require independent verification in cases involving serious allegations. Further, in cross-examination, P.W.6 stated that the complainant had disclosed before him that accused Daud Jena was demanding Rs.2,000/- for himself and Rs.1,000/- for the other accused. This part of the evidence indicates that the complainant was disclosing such facts to other witnesses, but the same have not been independently corroborated. Therefore, the said evidence cannot be safely relied upon and is liable to be discarded as unreliable. iii. In view of the aforesaid analysis of evidence and verification of documents, as the prosecution has miserably failed to establish demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe against the Respondent, the present appeal for leave deserves to be dismissed. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:10:32 Signature Not Verified Page 13 IV. FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED SPECIAL JUDGE (VIGILANCE), JEYPORE, KORAPUT 18. The learned trial court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, first held that both the accused persons were public servants and were working as Accountant and Senior Clerk respectively in the District Treasury Office, Koraput on the relevant date. 19. The court observed that in order to establish an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution is required to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which are sine qua non for constituting the offence. 20. On evaluation of the evidence of the complainant (P.W.8) and the overhearing witness (P.W.6), the court found that the prosecution had successfully proved that accused Daud Jena had demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- from the complainant and that the tainted money was recovered from his table drawer. The evidence of P.Ws.5, 6, 8 and 9, along with the chemical examination report (Ext.P-44), was held to be consistent, reliable and trustworthy in establishing demand, acceptance and recovery so far as accused Daud Jena is concerned. Accordingly, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act was held to arise against him, which he failed to rebut. 21. However, insofar as accused Nrusimhanath Sahu is concerned, the learned trial court found that no tainted money was recovered from him, that he was not present at the time of the trap, and that there was Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:10:32 Signature Not Verified Page 14 no evidence to establish that he had demanded or accepted any bribe from the complainant on the date of occurrence. The court further found no material to establish any conspiracy or connivance between the two accused persons. 22. The court noted that although there was an allegation of prior demand, the same was not fully corroborated by independent evidence. It was observed that while the prosecution could not establish repeated prior demands as alleged, the evidence on record did establish demand and acceptance by accused Daud Jena at the time of trap. However, in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance against accused Nrusimhanath Sahu, mere allegation of prior demand was held insufficient to sustain his conviction. 23. Relying on the settled legal position that recovery of tainted money, in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance, cannot by itself establish the offence, the learned trial court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused Nrusimhanath Sahu beyond reasonable doubt. 24. Accordingly, accused Daud Jena was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, while accused Nrusimhanath Sahu was acquitted of the said charges. V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 25. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:10:32 Signature Not Verified Page 15 26. At the outset, it is well settled that an appellate court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, possesses full power to reappreciate the evidence on record. However, such power is to be exercised with circumspection. If the view taken by the trial court is a plausible one, the appellate court ought not to interfere merely because another view is possible. Interference is warranted only where the findings of the trial court are perverse, manifestly illegal, or result in miscarriage of justice. The said principle has been succinctly laid down by the Supreme Court in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka1 where it was observed: “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court 1 (2007) 4 SCC 415. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:10:32 Signature Not Verified Page 16 to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 27. The offences in question in the instant matter arise under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is well settled that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are sine qua non for constituting the said offences. Mere recovery of tainted money, in the absence of proof of demand, is insufficient to sustain conviction, and the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act does not arise, as held by the Supreme Court in Om Parkash v. State of Haryana2. 28. In the present case, the learned trial court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, has returned a finding that while the prosecution has been able to establish demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as against accused No.1, namely Daud Jena, the same has not been proved against accused No.2, namely Nrusimhanath Sahu. 2 (2006) 2 SCC 250. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:10:32 Signature Not Verified Page 17 29. This Court has carefully examined the evidence on record in order to ascertain whether the aforesaid finding suffers from perversity or manifest illegality warranting interference. 30. The case of the prosecution against accused No.2 primarily rests on the allegation of prior demand, as deposed by the complainant (P.W.8), to the effect that a sum of Rs.2,000/- was demanded in his name. However, it is not in dispute that accused No.2 was not present at the time of the trap, no tainted money was recovered from his possession, and no demand was made by him on the date of the occurrence. 31. The testimony of P.W.8 regarding prior demand has not been corroborated by any independent witness. The overhearing witness (P.W.6) was not privy to the earlier conversations and has deposed only with regard to the transaction that took place at the time of the trap, which was confined to accused No.1. 32. In such circumstances, the learned trial court has held that the evidence relating to prior demand, in the absence of corroboration, is not sufficient to establish the guilt of accused No.2 beyond reasonable doubt. This approach, in the considered view of this Court, cannot be said to be either unreasonable or contrary to the settled principles governing cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 33. The contention of the appellant that the payment made to accused No.1 would amount to constructive acceptance on behalf of accused No.2 does not persuade this Court to take a different view. In the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:10:32 Signature Not Verified Page 18 absence of cogent evidence establishing a prior meeting of minds or a clearly proved demand attributable to accused No.2, such inference would not be safe to draw in a criminal trial governed by the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 34. The further circumstance relating to payment of Rs.200/- for issuance of tokens, as alleged by the prosecution, by itself does not conclusively establish demand of illegal gratification within the meaning of the Act, nor does it sufficiently connect accused No.2 with the trap transaction. 35. Upon an overall appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the finding of the learned trial court that the prosecution has failed to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as against accused No.2 is a plausible view based on the evidence available on record. 36. In view of the settled legal position that where two views are possible, the appellate court should not disturb an order of acquittal, this Court finds no compelling reason to interfere with the impugned judgment insofar as it relates to accused No.2. VI. CONCLUSION: 37. Accordingly, the CRLLP, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. 38. The judgment and order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Jeypore, Koraput in G.R. Case No. 01 of 2014 (V) / T.R. No. 15 of 2014, insofar as it relates to the acquittal of accused No.2, namely Nrusimhanath Sahu, is hereby affirmed. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 18:10:32 Page 19 39. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 17th April, 2026 / CUTTACK