STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SAROJ KUMAR SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sec. 378(4) Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed seeking leave by the prosecution to challenge an order of acquittal dated 29.8.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur in T.R. Case No. 27 of 1997.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that one Satish Kumar Mohapatra, the Proprietor of M/s. Life Pharmaceuticals, Rourkela had approached the accused (Opp. Party), who was then working as a Drugs Inspector and requested him to sign the Treasury Challan for renewal of his Drugs licence for the years 1996 -1997. It has been alleged that the accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 2,000/ - from the complainant for the said purpose, to which, the said Satish Kumar Mohapatra expressed his inability to pay the said amount and pursuant to which, the accused refused to sign the challans, lastly demanding Rs. 1500/ -. It further appears that on 25.3.1996, again the complainant approached the accused for signing the challans, but this time, though the accused signed Anr. challan for issue of Inspection Book, but refused to sign the challan for his 'licence renewal' without taking Rs. 1000/ -. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the complainant reporter the matter to the Superintendent of Police (Vig.), Sambalpur, on the basis of which a Vigilance case was registered and a trap was arranged on 26.3.1996.

(3.) Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Vigilance Department contended that the impugned order of acquittal was illegal, contrary to law and the evidence on record and the trial Court has committed an error in not considering the evidence of P.W. 1, 2 and 3 who supported the case of the prosecution. Apart from the above, Mr. Mohapatra contended that the trial Court had committed an error in holding that the Magistrate/witness brought out the money from under the files 'on the direction of the Vigilance Inspector' as well as came to a wrong finding in holding that the accused was temporarily absent from the office room during which the complainant might have placed the bribe money in the heaps of file on the table. But learned Counsel for the State submits that no where in the evidence of the prosecution it is stated that the accused temporarily absent from his seat.