[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Rama Chandra Parida vs State Of Orissa (G.A. Dept.) on 19 December, 2025
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.185 of 2010
Rama Chandra Parida .... Appellant
Mr. S. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa (G.A. Dept.) .... Respondent
Mr. M. S. Rizvi, ASC
Vigilance
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment: 19.12.2025
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 31.03.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance),
Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.89 of 1999 arising out of VGR Case
No.97 of 1999. The Appellant, having stood trial for the offences
under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, "the P.C. Act"), was found
guilty and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year on each count and
to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- on each count, with a direction that the
sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded before the trial
court, is that the Informant had purchased a piece of land by
executing a registered Sale Deed in the Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Ranpur on 14.10.1996. The vendor had authorised the Deed Writer,
Sanand Patnaik, to receive the registered Sale Deed on behalf of the
complainant. The document was to be collected on 18.10.1996. It is
alleged that on 18.10.1996 and again on 25.10.1996, Sri Patnaik
approached the Head Clerk, Ramachandra Parida (the Appellant),
requesting delivery of the Sale Deed, but the latter avoided doing so
and asked that the vendee be brought. Consequently, the
complainant approached the Appellant on 27.10.1996 and again on
30.10.1996. On 01.11.1996, when the complainant again
approached the Appellant, he allegedly demanded Rs.200/- as
illegal gratification for release of the Sale Deed. The complainant,
being aggrieved, lodged a written report with the Vigilance leading
to registration of Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.87/1996. During
investigation, a trap was laid and the Record-keeper, Krushna
Chandra Mohanty, was caught red-handed while accepting Rs.200/-
from the complainant. Upon completion of investigation, charge-
sheet was submitted against the Appellant and the said Record-
keeper for the offences under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and
7 of the P.C. Act.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses in
total. P.W.1 being the ADM-cum-District Registrar, Nayagarh, who
accorded the sanction for trap; P.W.2 being the Magisterial witness;
P.W.3 being the Scientific Officer, S.F.S.L., Bhubaneswar; P.W.4
being the Over-hearing witness; P.W.5 being a co-villager of the
Decoy; P.W.6 being the Junior Clerk at the Office of Sub-Registrar;
P.W.7 being the Decoy/Complainant; P.W.8 being the
I.O./Inspector (Vigilance); and exhibited sixteen documents (Exts.1
to 16/4), besides producing M.Os.I to IX. The defence examined
four witnesses and proved one document (Ext.A).
4. The defence plea was one of complete denial and false
implication.
5. The learned trial court, finding the prosecution evidence
cogent and free from doubt and proved beyond reasonable doubt,
held the present Appellant guilty of the charges while acquitting the
co-accused, the Record-keeper, under Section 248(1) CrPC on the
ground that the prosecution failed to establish the case against him.
6. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Appellant, assailed the impugned judgment contending that the
findings are contrary to evidence and law and suffer from total non-
application of judicial mind. It was argued that the prosecution
failed to prove the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance,
and in the absence of clear and legally acceptable evidence, the
learned trial court ought not to have convicted the Appellant. He
submitted that the trial court overlooked the evidence of P.W.2 and
P.W.7 which clearly suggest that the Appellant was not present at
the time of the trap, whereas the Record-keeper who was custodian
of the documents was acquitted. Learned Senior Counsel contended
that the prosecution witnesses, including the complainant (P.W.7)
and the overhearing witness (P.W.4), gave inconsistent and
contradictory versions. He further argued that the trap witnesses
were interested and partisan and their evidence lacked corroboration
on material particulars. The prosecution also failed to examine
material witness Sananda Patnaik, the Moharir who was entrusted
with receiving the Sale Deed. It was submitted that the
contradictions in the statements of the complainant and the
overhearing witness strike at the root of the prosecution case.
Additionally, it was argued that there was no valid sanction for
prosecution of the Appellant and the trial court erred in overlooking
this legal infirmity.
7. Mr. Rizvi, learned counsel for the Vigilance, supported the
impugned judgment contending that the findings are based on
consistent, coherent and trustworthy evidence proving both demand
and acceptance. He submitted that the evidence of the complainant,
overhearing witness and trap team members is fully corroborated
and the trial court has analysed the material in accordance with law.
Hence, no interference is warranted.
8. Before adverting to the rival submissions and undertaking
an analysis of the evidence on record, it would be apposite to
briefly examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution through
its witnesses during trial.
P.W.1, Purna Chandra Behera stated that the Appellant was
the Head Clerk and one Krushna Chandra Mohanty was the Sr.
Clerk in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ranpur during the relevant
period. According to the witness, in the capacity of District
Registrar, he was the competent authority for their dismissal form
service as per law. On the basis of the requisition received from
S.P. Vigilance, Bhubaneswar Division, Bhubaneswar, he accorded
seeking sanction for launching prosecution against the Appellant.
Upon perused the Police Papers and the consolidated report of S.P.
Vigilance and having a discussion with the I.O. on being satisfied
that the Appellant and another to have committed the offence, he
accorded the sanction. Nothing much could be elicited from the
witnesses. In course of his cross-examination, the witness though
stated to have perused the documents as placed before him by the
I.O. he could not spell out all those, he perused and expressed his
inability to remember the nature of the documents placed before
him besides the FIR, the report of the S.P., the preparation report
and the detection report.
As far as P.W.2 is concerned, he was a witness to the trap
laid on 04.11.1996. According to this witness, the complainant
being present in the Vigilance Office narrated his grievance
disclosing the fact that the Head Clerk, the Appellant herein
demanded Rs.200/- from him to return the Sale Deed executed in
his favour as purchased by him and he further disclosed that he
lodged the FIR at the Vigilance Police Station. This witness was
also subjected to cross-examination wherein in he answered that
four numbers of Rs.50/- G.C. notes was produced by the Informant
which he brought for to the Appellant. He also stated that these
notes were treated with chemical powder after noting down the
numbers of the notes, demonstration was made to show the use and
effect of the power in chemical solution, hand wash sample was
preserved. He further stated that the tainted notes were given to the
Informant in a fourfold paper with instruction to make payment
only on demand and he was asked to compare the numbers of the
notes at the time of detection. He also stated one Subash Chandra
Dalei (P.W.4) was asked to accompany the Informant with
instruction to overhear conversation between the Appellant and the
Informant and to give signal after the transaction. He also stated
that a preparation report was made in his presence and proved the
report vide Ext.3. According to this witness, the accompanying
witness was sitting on the entrance door of the Office of Sub-
Registrar and the Informant received the documents from the
Record Keeper, the co-accused and the Vigilance staff caught hold
of the hands of the Record Keeper, Sri Mohanty and on which
challenged he too have agreed to have received the bribe from the
Informant and the accused, Record Keeper admitted to have
received Rs.200/- from the Informant, and told that he had kept it in
his left side chest pocket and accordingly, the Record Keeper,
Mohanty was told that he kept the money as per the instruction of
the Head Clerk, Rama Chandra Parida. In course of his cross-
examination, the witness admitted to be a witness in another
vigilance case and admitted to have not personally enquired from
the Informant about the truthfulness of the allegation made in the
FIR. He admitted the Appellant to be not present at the office when
he entered into the office from outside.
P.W.3, Pradip Kumar Samantray was stated to be an official
of SFSL engaged as Scientific Officer at SFSL, Bhubaneswar. He
stated to have examined the incriminating materials and submitted
his report vide Ext.2, no such material has been elicited from the
witness by cross-examination.
P.W.4, Subash Chandra Dalei is the star witness who stated
to be the Small Saving Officer in the Office of the Sub-Collector,
Khurda on 04.11.1996. He supported the case of the prosecution
with his statement that the Complainant when was introduced to
them, he expressed his compliant before them that the Head Clerk
Mr. Parida of sub-Registrar‟s Office, Ranpur had been demanding
bribe of Rs.200/- for release of the registered Sale Deed and the
Complainant produced four numbers of fifty rupees G.C. notes
before them, demonstration was made to show the effect some
powder in some solution. He further stated that the Informant was
instructed to hand over those tainted G.C. notes to the accused on
his demand and he was asked to accompany him and to overhear
conversation between the accused and Informant and to give signal
after the transaction. The witness narrated the manner in which they
proceeded to the Office of the Sub-Registrar. The witness clearly
stated that he does not remember the co-accused, Shri Mohanty had
handed over the Sale Deed to the Complainant in his presence and
that the accused, Parida told co-accused Mohanty to keep Rs.200/-
from the Complainant and to give the Sale Deed to him. He also
could not say wherefrom the Sale Deed was brought at the time of
seizure and on hearing the instruction of Shri Parida to accused
Mohanty to keep Rs.200/- and to give the Sale Deed to the
Complaint, he went out to give signal to the Vigilance. He does not
know about the discussion between the accused Shri Parida and
Shri Mohant after the aforesaid incident; after giving signal to the
Vigilance team, he stated to have returned to the record room and
by that time, accused Parida had gone back to his room. He also
declined to have remembered the statement made by him before the
I.O. that the accused Parida was his boss and on his instruction, he
has received the money. He also denied the fact that he had not
accompanied the Complainant to the accused Shri Parida and have
not seen any transaction and that he was standing near the entrance
gate of the office. This witness too admitted to be a witness in
another trap case, nothing material could be elicited from this
witness also on the factum of demand by the Appellant and the
acceptance of the bribe by the co-accused.
P.W.5, Bidyadhar Parida, he stated on oath that about
eleven to twelve years before his examination in the court, he had
sold 40 decimals of land to Ajaya Kumar Behera on consideration
money of Rs.11,000/- and the Sale Deed was registered before Sub-
Registrar, Ranpur. He further stated that one Sananda Patnaik
scribed the Sale Deed and Ajay Behera authorized to Sananda
Pattnaik to scribe of the Sale Deed and to receive the registered Sale
Deed from Sub-Registrar Office as he was not in a position to come
later. This witness has not been cross-examined substantially by the
defence except a suggestion to which he denied.
P.W.6, Brajabandhu Pradhan is the Junior Clerk in the
Office of the Sub-Registrar during the relevant period. In his
evidence on oath, he stated to be witness to compare the documents
in the Office and stated that the Sl. Nos. are given in the registered
documents, the Record Keeper is the custodian of registered Sale
Deeds, if the same was not being received by the concerned person,
on the very dated of presentation of the Sale Deed, it is being
registered, if delivery is being taken within fifteen days, penalty of
Rs.1/- is being charged for fifteen days. The Record Keeper used to
give endorsement relating to amount of penalty and according to
witness, it appears from the attested photocopy of fee book that
there is no date of delivery against the appropriate column and
Brajasundar Mohapatra was Sub-Registrar on 04.11.1996.
According to the witness, it appears that Brajasundar Mohapatra
had attested the copy of the fee book Ext.12. He further stated that
the true copy of the register showing delivery of documents vide
Ext.13 and the Deed was not delivered till 25.10.199. According to
this witness, the Head Clerk is to prepare the check list as proved
vide Ext.14. He further stated that the entries in the second page of
check list have been made by K. C. Mohanty, the co-accused. On
14.10.1996 K. C. Mohanty and R. C. Parida had signed at the
bottom of page of the check list. In his cross-examination, the
witness stated that one R. C. Parida was Sub-Registrar of Ranpur
and he has signed in the check list in the capacity of Sub-Registrar
and the date is being given in the registration ticket for delivery of
document, the document was handed over to the person whom the
transferer names in the body of registration ticket and that no other
person is authorized to receive the document unless the transferer
specifically endorses his name on the body of the registration ticket.
P.W.7, Ajay Kumar Behera is the Informant who in course
of his evidence on oath stated that on 31.10.1996 the Sale Deed was
not given to Sananda and on 01.11.1996 he went to Sub-Registrar
Office and met the Appellant-Rama Ch. Parida he demanded
Rs.200/- for giving the Sale Deed towards bribe, he also asked him
to bring the authorization from Sananda along with money, when he
expressed his reluctance to pay bribe, he threatened for
undervaluation, he therefore, reported the matter to Inspector
Vigilance Khurda on 03.11.1996 vide Ext.16, he was asked to come
to Vigilance Office on 04.11.1996 and on that day, he appeared
before the Inspector Vigilance Khurda and in presence of the
Vigilance officials as well as the witnesses narrated the content of
the FIR and told that the demand of bribe of Rs.200/- was made by
Rama Ch. Parida for releasing the Regd. Sale Deed. He also
admitted to have produced four numbers of 50 rupees notes before
the trap party members. This witness categorically stated that on the
relevant day at 11:00 a.m. he along with other proceeded to the
Sub-Registrar Office, Ranapur and reached their at 12:45 p.m., he
proceeded by walk to the office room of Appellant-Parida, Subash
followed him, he entered inside the room, Subash, overhearing
witness stood near the door, he paid respect to Rama Ch. Parida,
Appellant-Parida enquired whether he had brought the demanded
money answering it in affirmative the witness stated that on the
instruction of Mr. Parida who came to the record room followed by
Krushna Mohanty, the Record Keeper, the Appellant asked Krushna
Mohanty to receive Rs.200/- from him and to handover the Sale
Deed. Accordingly, the Sale Deed was handed over by Krushna
Mohanty and he also stated that Krushna Mohanty received money
from him along with authorization and handed over the Sale Deed.
He also stated that the overhearing witness Mr. Dalai followed him
and when he gave signal, other members of trap party came to the
Office. In his cross-examination, the witness stated that Sananda
Patnaik was working as Moharir in the Sub-Registrar Office,
Ranapur, he used to scribe the Sale Deed and presented for
registration., he is also working there for the last 20 years, he had
no acquaintance with the Appellant-Parida prior to the trap, he had
no acquaintance with Sananda, the Moharir prior to the trap and he
had not purchased any other land prior to the purchase of land in
question and he had no knowledge about the manner of obtaining
Sale Deed from Sub-Registrar Office he also could not say whether
actually Sananda had gone on 18.10.1996 and 25.10.1996 to collect
Sale Deed from Appellant-Parida and that on 27.10.1996 he met
Sananda in market where he told Sananda had not accompanied
with him on 30.10.1996 when he had been to Shri Parida prior to
14.10.1996. The witness denied the Appellant to be not present in
the record room when Vigilance staff entered inside that room and
also denied the fact that the Appellant had never demanded bribe of
Rs.200/- from him and he never approached to return the Sale Deed
and Appellant-Parida never delivered Regd. Sale Deed to any
person and that it is only the Record Keeper who used to deliver
Regd. Sale Deed, there is no authorization in the registration ticket
in my favour to receive the Regd. Sale Deed. Nothing material
could be elicited from this witness too to shake his testimony.
P.W.8, Padma Ch. Patra is the I.O. who narrated the manner
in which the investigation was carried on, the seizure was made, the
trap was laid and finally implicate the Appellant to be the person at
whose instance the co-accused-Krushna Ch. Mohanty received the
bribe money.
9. Having 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 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
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.
(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".
11. Tested on the touchstone of the settled legal principles
reiterated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta (supra)
and P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra), the evidence on record falls
short of satisfying the indispensable requirements for sustaining the
conviction of the appellant under the provisions of the P.C. Act. A
cumulative assessment of the prosecution evidence unmistakably
demonstrates that on the date of the trap, the tainted currency notes
were not received by the appellant. It is the admitted position
emerging from the prosecution case itself that the tainted money
was recovered from the co-accused, namely, the Record Keeper,
Krushna Chandra Mohanty, and not from the appellant.
12. The sole incriminating circumstance sought to be projected
against the appellant is the alleged demand of illegal gratification
for release of the registered sale deed. However, even according to
the prosecution, the complainant approached the Record Keeper on
the date of occurrence and it was the Record Keeper who received
the tainted money. The prosecution case proceeds on the premise
that such receipt was on the instruction of the appellant. This
allegation, in the absence of any independent and reliable
corroboration, cannot be elevated to the level of proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Significantly, the co-accused Record Keeper,
from whose possession the tainted money was recovered and whose
handwash yielded positive results, has been acquitted by the trial
court, and such acquittal has admittedly attained finality, having not
been assailed by the prosecution.
It is trite that proof of both demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification constitutes the sine qua non for establishing offences
under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C.
Act. While the prosecution has been able to demonstrate that the
handwash of the co-accused turned pink, thereby indicating receipt
of the tainted money, there is no legally sustainable material on
record to establish that the appellant either accepted the bribe or
caused its acceptance through the co-accused. The allegation that
the co-accused received the money at the behest of the appellant,
without the co-accused supporting such a version and in the face of
his acquittal, cannot, by itself, form the basis of a conviction of the
appellant.
13. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the considered
view that in the absence of cogent and convincing evidence
establishing the foundational facts of demand and acceptance qua
the appellant, the statutory presumptions under the P.C. Act do not
arise. The prosecution has failed to establish, beyond reasonable
doubt, the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by the Appellant so as to attract the offences
punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The findings recorded by
the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar, in so far as
they relate to the appellant, cannot be sustained in law and are liable
to be interfered with.
14. The judgment and order dated 31.03.2010 passed by the
learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.
89 of 1999, is hereby set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the
charges levelled against him. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 19-Dec-2025 18:56:47
