Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa (Ga) vs Judhistira Sahoo ..... Opposite Party on 18 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP No.40 of 2007
State Of Orissa (GA) ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Sangram Das,
Standing Counsel for the
Vigilance Department
-versus-
Judhistira Sahoo ..... Opposite Party
CORAM:
THE HON'BE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
18.09.2025
Order No.
06. 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
Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant leave to the Vigilance Department to
prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.11.2006
passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in T.R.
Case No.71 of 2000.
4. The above noted vigilance case was registered on the basis of
the CTC Vigilance F.I.R. dated 21.03.1999 registered with the
allegation for commission of offence punishable under Section
13(1)(d) read with 13(2) and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
5. As per the F.I.R. allegation, the Complainant got appointment
as a Sweeper on temporary basis as per the order of the C.D.M.O.,
Jajpur in the month of March of the year 1995 on 44 days basis.
Eventually, the Complainant was retrenched from service on
17.3.1999, for which, he met the CDMO for his reappointment. The
CDMO directed the Dealing Assistant to give the Petitioner
reappointed. The concerned Dealing Assistant requested the
Complainant to meet the Head Clerk- the accused and that it is
alleged that the accused demanded a bribe of Rs.200/- for
reappointment of the Complainant. On the basis of the aforesaid
allegation, the vigilance F.I.R. was registered and the investigation
was carried out. Finally, charge sheet was filed against the accused-
Opposite Party and the accused-Opposite Party faced the trial.
6. The learned trial court vide its detailed judgment dated
20.11.2006 was pleased to acquit the accused-Opposite Party vide. It
has been categorically held by the learned trial court that the accused-
Opposite Party not found guilty of the offences alleged against him
and, as such, he was acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.
Learned trial court has categorically observed that the prosecution
has failed to adduce evidence to establish the fact of demand of bribe
by the accused. In fact, some of the prosecution witnesses have
admitted about the manipulation the statement of the witnesses.
Above all, the learned trial court has expressed displeasure with
regard to the manner on which the trial has been conducted by the
prosecution. Although learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance
Department emphatically argued that Grounds No. D, E & F are good
grounds to grant leave to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal. However,
on a careful perusal of the Grounds No.D, E & F of the petition and
on a careful analysis of the judgment of the trial court, this Court is
of the view that no strong case has been made out by the Vigilance
Department for grant of leave to prefer an appeal. Moreover, since
the accused-Opposite Party was aged 62 years at the time of filing of
the leave petition in the year 2007, it is not known whether he is still
alive or not.
7. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is not inclined to
grant leave.
8. Moreover, on perusal of the Stamp Report, it appears that there
exists a delay of about 31 days in presentation of this application. No
steps have been taken by the Petitioner for condonation of such
delay, as no application is there on record. As such, the CRLLP is
liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone.
9. Accordingly, the CRLLP stands dismissed.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
