Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa (Ga) vs Maheswar Behera ..... Opposite Party on 18 September, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP No.160 of 2006
State Of Orissa (GA) ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Sangram Das,
Standing Counsel
-versus-
Maheswar Behera ..... Opposite Party
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
18.09.2025
Order No.
20. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel appearing
for the Vigilance Department-Petitioner. Perused the application as
well as the prayer made therein.
3. The present application has been filed under Section 378 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure seeking leave to prefer an appeal against
the judgment of acquittal dated 18.08.2006 passed by the learned
Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur in T.R. Case No.21 of 1999.
4. On perusal of the record, it appears that the above noted
Vigilance Case arises on the basis of the F.I.R. registered at the
instance of the Vigilance Department alleging commission of offence
punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
5. As per the allegation, the accused-Opposite Party, who was
working as a Amin in the office of the Tahsildar, Bonai, had accepted
illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- for demarcation of the land of the
Complainant. Accordingly, the accused-Opposite Party was caught
in the vigilance trap case and faced trial in the above noted T.R. Case
before the Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur.
6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Vigilance
Department-Petitioner, at the outset, contended that there are ample
materials to prove the guilt of the accused. However, the learned trial
court while delivering the judgment of acquittal did not take into
consideration such material, as a result of which, the learned trial
court has rendered an erroneous judgment, which is unsustainable in
law.
7. In course of his argument, learned Standing Counsel laid
emphasis on the Ground Nos. B, C & D of the appeal memo. On
perusal of those grounds, this Court found that the same are general
in nature and that the same will have no substantial bearing on the
outcome of the trial.
8. On careful analysis of the background facts of the present case,
this Court observes that although the judgment of acquittal was
delivered on 18.08.2006 and the Vigilance Department filed this
petition on 08.11.2006, the same was listed for the first time on
05.07.2007. Thereafter, the matter was listed on several occasions in
the year 2007 and 2008. However, the same was not admitted. Later,
vide order dated 15.02.2008, notice was issued to the Opposite Party-
accused and the LCR was called for. Since then the matter is
pending before this Court. Even the office noting reveals that notice
has not been duly served on the Opposite Party.
9. The matter has again been listed today after expiry of almost
two decades from the date it was filed before this Court.
10. It further appears that the notice was not made sufficient on the
Opposite Party. Moreover, even on merits, this Court did not find
force in the grounds taken by the learned Standing Counsel appearing
for the Vigilance Department-Petitioner and that such grounds are
not good grounds to grant leave to prefer an appeal.
11. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is not inclined to
grant leave to prefer an appeal.
12. Accordingly, the CRLLP filed by the Vigilance Department is
hereby dismissed.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
