State should exercise its right to challenge acquittals in criminal cases sparingly: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court recently emphasised that the State government should exercise its right to challenge acquittals in criminal cases sparingly and only in cases of public importance or where there has been a grave miscarriage of justice [State of Odisha (Vigilance) v. Debasis Dixit]..Justice SK Sahoo further observed that an order of acquittal should not be disturbed in an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) unless it is perverse or unreasonable. There must exist very strong and compelling reasons in order to interfere with acquittals, the Court said.."The right of appeal against acquittal vested in the State Government should be used sparingly and with circumspection and it is to be made only in case of public importance or where there has been a miscarriage of justice of a very grave nature," the Court said. .The Court made the observations while upholding the acquittal of a man who had been accused of having accepted ₹10,000 as a bribe. The accused had denied the allegations of bribery and counter-alleged that a false case had been filed against him.The prosecution, on the other hand, highlighted that the accused man's hands had changed colour on washing them, indicating that he had accepted currency notes coated with phenolphthalein as part of a trap laid by vigilance authorities. .Dismissing the prosecution's case, Justice Sahoo pointed out that mere receipt of the money is not enough to convict an accused for bribery charges. A demand for the bribe must first be proved, the Court highlighted. "Law is well settled that mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten his guilt in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification ... ... The prosecution has to successfully prove the foundational facts i.e. the demand, acceptance of bribe money and recovery of the same from the accused ... The proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offences under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and in absence thereof, the charge would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, de hors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the PC Act," the judgment stated. .In the present case, the High Court agreed with the trial court that there were significant discrepancies relating to the recovery of the tainted money from the respondent.Therefore, the Court proceeded to dismiss the plea moved by the vigilance authorities for leave to appeal against the trial court's acquittal in the matter..The judge added that if a trial court's conclusions are not unreasonable, the appellate court should not disturb the same, even if it is possible to reach a different conclusion on the basis of the material on the record. In this regard, reference was made to the Supreme Court's ruling in Babu v. State of Uttar Pradesh."...the trial Judge has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the initial presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is not weakened by his acquittal. The appellate Court, therefore, should be slow in disturbing the finding of fact of the trial Court", the Court explained. .Standing counsel, Sangram Das appeared for the Vigilance Department, whereas advocate JK Panda appeared for the opposite party. .[Read Order]