Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.131 of 2008 State Of Orissa ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Mr. Sangram Das (sc, Vig.), Mr D.k.mohaptra,scvig. -versus- Sarat Ku.jena ..... Opposite Party Represented By Adv. - Devashis Panda S.panda A.mehta D.k.mohapatra CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 14.10.2025 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Mr. S.Das, learned Senior Counsel for the Vigilance Department as well as learned counsel appearing for the accused-Opposite Party. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The present application has been filed under Section 378(1)(3) seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 16.08.2007 passed by the learned Additional Special Judge Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.28/2019 of 2007/97, thereby acquitting the Opposite Party-accused of the charges under Section 7 read with Section 31(b)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Page 2 of 4. 4. Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the learned trial court has committed an error of law in acquitting the petitioner of all charges. He further alleged that the learned trial court has on perverse appreciation of the evidence on record has come to a conclusion that the Petitioner is not guilty of the charges of demanding and accepting the illegal gratification. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner specifically referred to ground B and C stated in the body of the petition. So far ground No. B is concerned, learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that the learned trial court has ignored the evidence of P.W.-1 who is an expert and responsible government servant, as well as of P.W.-2 who is over-hearing witness. Moreover, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has not been taken into consideration by the learned trial court while passing the judgment of acquittal. Further, ground has been taken that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the exhibit Nos.1 to 3 which goes a long way to establish the prosecution case. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner has a very good case and that there is possibility of the Petitioner being convicted in the event the prosecution is given an opportunity to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal. 5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties-accused on the other hand fully supported the judgment of acquittal dated 16.08.2007. He further contended that the learned trial court has Page 3 of 4. not committed any illegality in giving the benefit of doubt to the Petitioner and by discarding the evidence of P.W.-2. He further contended that the prosecution has measurably failed to bring home the charges. As a result of which the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-Opposite Parties. It was also contended that the evidence of P.W.-1 and 2 does not inspire confidence since the same does not consequently indicate towards the commission of crime by the Petitioner. Moreover, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that this application has been filed in the year 2008 and in the meantime more than and half decades have elapsed. Therefore in the event the relief is granted to the prosecution to prefer an appeal, the same will cause harassment to the Petitioner and is also likely to cause disturbance to the entire family of the accused-Opposite Parties which would not be in the furtherance of justice. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner objected to the grant of leave. 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 16.08.2007, this Court observes that the accused-Opposite Parties were implicated in a trap case for accepting illegal gratification of Rs.5000/-. However, the learned trial court upon conclusion of the trial and on a careful evaluation of the evidence has come to a conclusion that the prosecution of the present case has failed to establish charges against the accused-Opposite Parties. On a careful analysis of the ground No. B & C of the Petition, this Court is of the view Page 4 of 4. that the same does not inspire the confidence of this Court to grant a leave to prefer an appeal. Moreover, the analysis made by the learned trial court in Para-6 of the judgment does not call for any interference by this Court. Further, taking into consideration the fact that the judgment of acquittal was passed in the year 2007 and the leave application is being taken up after one and half decades, this Court is not inclined to grant leave to prefer an appeal. 7. Accordingly, the leave application stands dismissed. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi