IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRA No.175 of 1999

(In the matter of an application under Section 374 of the Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973)

Pradipta Kishore Sarangi ……. Appellant

-Versus-

State of Orissa ……. Respond ent

For the Appellant : Ms. Bini Mishra,

Advocate

For the Respondent : Mr. M.S. Rizvi,

Additional Standing Counsel for

Vigilance Department

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing: 24.03.2026 : Date of Judgment: 16.04.2026

S.S. Mishra, J. The sole appellant has filed the present Criminal

Appeal assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 21.06.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Special Judge

(Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. No. 55/4 of 1992/89, whereby the

learned Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences

punishable under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act

and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to

Page 2 of 17

undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.

500/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for 15 days for the offence

under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The

appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for

15 days for the offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code,

with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Heard Ms. Bini Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the

appellant and Mr. M.S. Rizvi, the learned Additional Standing

Counsel appearing for the Respondent-State (Vigilance Department).

3. The informant (P.W.2) was running a tailoring shop at G.C.I.

Market, Bajrakabati Road, Cuttack, and had obtained an electricity

connection for the said shop after depositing a security amount of Rs.

500/-, pursuant to which the connection was effected on 11.09.1985.

Subsequently, due to certain difficulties in continuing his business,

the informant, on 12.10.1985, submitted an application to the

Executive Engineer, O.S.E.B., Ranihat, Cuttack (Ext. 10), requesting

disconnection of the electric line and refund of the security deposit.

Acting upon the said application, the Executive Engineer passed

necessary orders, and a final bill amounting to Rs. 71.92 was

Page 3 of 17

prepared, with a direction to refund the balance security amount of

Rs. 428.08 to the informant. As the relevant file was in the custody of

the accused, the informant approached him on several occasions for

the refund. Ultimately, on 06.05.1986, when the informant again

approached the accused, the latter demanded a sum of Rs. 50/- as

illegal gratification for facilitating the refund of the balance security

amount. Upon the informant expressing his inability to pay the said

amount, he, on the same day, lodged a written report (Ext. 11) before

the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Central Division, Cuttack.

Pursuant thereto, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 26/1986 was registered

under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code by the

Officer-in-Charge, Vigilance Police Station, Cuttack. After

completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the

accused.

4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as

many as eleven witnesses. Out of them, P.W.1 was the Executive

Magistrate who accompanied the raiding party; P.W.2 was the

informant; P.W.3 was the Scientific Officer; P.W.4 was the clerk in

the Ranihat Branch from whom the tainted amount of Rs. 50/- was

Page 4 of 17

recovered; P.W.5 was the then Head Clerk in the office of the

Collectorate, Cuttack, who accompanied the raiding party as an

overhearing witness; P.W.6 was the Inspector of Vigilance (Cell),

Cuttack, who was also a member of the raiding party; P.W.7 was the

Sub-Inspector of Police, Vigilance, who prepared the sodium

carbonate solution and treated the tainted currency notes of Rs. 50/-

with phenolphthalein powder; and P.W.8 was the Building Inspector

in the office of the D.I.G. of Police, Central Range, who prepared the

spot map. P.W.9 was the Inspector of Vigilance (Cell), Cuttack;

P.W.10 was the Financial Advisor-cum-Chief Accounts Officer of the

State Electricity Board, Bhubaneswar, who accorded sanction for

prosecution of the accused; and P.W.11 was the Inspector of

Vigilance Directorate (Cell), Cuttack, who took over the investigation

from P.W.9 and subsequently handed it over to one U.C. Pattnaik,

who, upon completion of the investigation, submitted the charge-

sheet.

5. The learned trial Court, by meticulous analysis of the evidence

brought on record by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the

entire charge brought against the appellant by the prosecution stood

proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appellant was

Page 5 of 17

convicted for those charges and has been sentenced on each count.

The appellant is aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and

order of sentence and has filed the present appeal.

6. In the present case, P.W.2 is the informant/decoy. He has

complained that he had applied for electricity connection for his

tailoring shop and deposited the security amount. However, he made

application to the Executive Engineer, O.S.E.B., Ranihat, Cuttack to

refund the security deposit by moving an application Ext.10.

Although the Executive Engineer passed an order for refund of the

money to him, but the accused-appellant, who was an Accountant,

made him to run from pillar to post for refunding him the amount.

The appellant demanded Rs.50/- to which he expressed his inability to

pay the same at the beginning but promised to pay later once the

refund is made. Since he was harassed to the hilt he had to give a

complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, which is marked

as Ext.11. In the Office of the Superintendent of Police, he was

introduced with the Officers present there to whom he narrated the

incident in detail regarding the demand of bribe. The raid team was

conducted while preparing for the raid. He produced fifty rupee

currency note which was treated with the phenolphthalein powder.

Page 6 of 17

Likewise, the pre-raiding preparation was made in the office of the

Superintendent of Police. The raiding party along with the witness

reached in the office of the accused-appellant at 10.30 A.M. P.W.5

accompanied with them. He gave fifty rupee to one Sarangi babu of

the office. But the witness refused to identify who was Sarangi babu.

Therefore, P.W.2 was declared hostile by the prosecution and he was

put to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he identified one

Pradeep Kumar Sarangi, who was working as Accountant in the

office of the O.S.E.B.

7. P.W.1 was the Executive Magistrate, who in his evidence has

deposed that the Collector has requisitioned his services by the

Vigilance Department in connection with the trap case. At 8.45 A.M.

on 06.05.1986, he proceeded to the Vigilance Office, Cuttack and got

introduced with the other officers present there along with P.W.2, the

decoy. In his presence, P.W.2 narrated the demand and the

harassment meted out to him by the appellant. P.W.2 and has also

categorically stated before him regarding the demand of illegal

gratification of rupees fifty from him. He further deposed that the

decoy, P.W.2 produced fifty rupee note, which was smeared with

phenolphthalein powder. The pre-raid preparation report was

Page 7 of 17

prepared, which was exhibited as Ext.1 where he signed and this is

marked as Ext.1/1. He further deposed that the decoy and the other

overhearing witnesses arrived at the office of the accused-appellant

and all of them followed the decoy. The accused was sitting in his

office at the first floor. The decoy, P.W.2 went straight to him and

gave the tainted currency note to the accused-appellant. The

overhearing witness came outside and gave indication as per the

discussion by rubbing his head. In the meanwhile the accused-

appellant went to another room taking a file with him and handed

over that file to one lady assistant and got down to the ground floor.

He further deposed that the appellant went to the cashier-P.W.4 and

exchanged the tainted currency notes by taking five ten rupees

currency notes from him. While accused was getting up in the stair

case to go to his office cabin, he was detained by the raiding party. At

that time, this witness was also present. He further deposed that the

DSP, Vigilance and he himself challenged the accused-appellant after

disclosing their identity to which the accused-appellant denied to have

received the money. The tainted fifty rupees note recovered from

P.W.4. The tainted currency note was marked as M.O.I. The appellant

got five numbers of ten rupees currency notes from the cashier in

Page 8 of 17

exchange of M.O.I and those ten rupees notes were also recovered

and marked as M.Os.II. The hand wash of the cashier-P.W.4 as well

as the appellant was taken in the sodium carbonate solution, which

turned pink.

P.W.3 was the Scientific Officer, who has deposed in his

evidence that the materials containing five numbers of sealed glass

bottles marked as A, B, C, D and E respectively containing pink

coloured liquid in each bottles were tested and the result was

phenolphthalein could be detected in the liquid in each of the bottles

marked as A, B, C, D and E. Accordingly, he submitted his report

which is marked as Ext.12.

P.W.4 was the Accountant to whom the tainted fifty rupees

currency was given by the appellant as M.O.I and five ten rupees

currency was taken to M.O.II. He in his deposition has admitted the

prosecution version to a large extent though with minor deviation.

This witness was declared hostile by the Prosecution as he didn’t

support to the fullest.

P.W.5 was the Senior Clerk, who had accompanied the raiding

party. He has also deposed in his evidence that in his presence, P.W.2,

the decoy has narrated about the harassment meted out to him and has

Page 9 of 17

also stated that the appellant had demanded bribe of Rs.50/-. He has

stated in his evidence that the appellant Mr. Sarangi was employed as

an assistant in the office of O.S.E.B. There is no variation in the

narration made by P.W.5 regarding the raiding as has been narrated

by P.W.1. P.W.6 was also a member of the raiding party. He has

deposed in his evidence that the appellant-Pradeep Sarangi was

working as Accountant in the Electricity Distribution Division of

Ranihat, Cuttack. He further deposed that the entire pre-raid

preparation was made in his presence and in presence of P.Ws.1, 5

and the I.O. of the present case. He deposed that P.W.2, the decoy has

narrated the entire case before them and also disclosed that Mr.

Sarangi, the appellant has demanded illegal gratification of Rs.50/-

for release of the security amount of Rs.500/- as directed by the

Executive Engineer. The said witness has fully supported the

prosecution by narrating the trap and acceptance of bribe money by

the appellant. P.W.9, the I.O. in his deposition has stated as under:

“At 10.25 A.M. on the same day on getting the signal from

Kulamani Mohanty, myself and D.S.P. Uma Charan

Mohanty, Pitabas Beura, B.B. Mohapatra, I.E. all the

members of the raiding proceeded to the spot and we found

the accused on the corridor near the stair case where he was

detained by us. The informant and the over hearing witness

disclosed before us that while the accused was in his seat two

minutes back he made demand of Rs.50/- which was paid by

the informant and was accepted by the accused and the

Page 10 of 17

accused kept the currency note in the left side pocket of his

full pant. M.O.III is the full pant which the accused was

wearing then. Before we caught hold of the accused he on

receipt of Rs.50/- immediately handed over the file of the

informant to a lady Asst. and went to the Account Section and

changed the tainted amount of Rs.50/- from the cash section

and came back to the corridor. After catching hold the

accused while I disclosed my identity also disclosed the

identity of the other persons belonging to the raiding party, to

the accused. When I challenged the accused whatever

received Rs.50/- as gratification from the informant he

became restless. There from he was taken to his own seat and

the right hand was washed by the sodium carbonate solution

and the solution turned into pink in colour.”

(Not clear)

8. Ms. Bini Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant besides

pointing out the discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of

the witnesses primarily relied upon the evidence of P.W.2 and

submitted that the decoy himself has not supported the prosecution

case. The decoy in the beginning of his evidence has stated that he

does not know the accused at all. Further, the said witness has

deposed that he gave the rupees to the Sarangi babu, however, he

further stated that the accused is not the same Sarangi babu. At that

stage, he was declared hostile. Therefore, if the evidence of P.W.2 is

appreciated in right prospective, the conviction cannot stand the

scrutiny of law. She further submitted that the learned trial Court has

failed to appreciate the defence version. In the statement recorded

under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C., the appellant has taken a specific

Page 11 of 17

defence regarding the false implication. While answering the question

no.33, the appellant has stated as under:

“Question – What have you got to say anything more about

this case?

Answer - There were two witnesses at that time in the

Electricity Department at Ranihat and I belong to

one union. Due to rivalry with the other union I

have been falsely implicated in this case.”

The defence plea taken by the appellant was meticulously dealt

with by the learned trial Court in paragraph-7 of the impugned

judgment, which reads thus:

“7. It is the plea of the defence that out of union rivalry

this false case has been foisted against the accused. Admittedly

P.W.4 who is the co-worker of the accused in the Ranihat

Branch admitted in his cross-examination that there were three

unions of the employees of O.S.E.B. Ranihat Division, when he

was a member of one of those three unions and accused was

also a member of another union. Admittedly P.W.4 have gone

hostile to the prosecution, but during course of cross-

examination by the defence he has categorically admitted in

saying “it is not a fact that for union rivalry such a false case

has been started.” Similarly coming to the evidence of P.W.2 the

informant, he in order to help the accused, have gone hostile to

the prosecution. He during course of cross-examination by the

defence have categorically admitted in saying that “it is not a

fact that I have filed this case falsely at the instance of rival

union of the accused.” Therefore in view of the admission of two

hostile witnesses it can be safely said that the first category of

defence plea falls to the ground.”

9. I find no reason to disagree with the findings recorded above,

as the findings so recorded by the learned trial Court is culmination of

true appreciation of the evidence. The other plea of Ms. Mishra,

Page 12 of 17

learned counsel regarding the evidence of P.W.2 has also been dealt

with by the learned trial Court in detail in paragraphs-10 and 11 of the

impugned judgment to which I have no hesitation to accept, as the

same also is outcome of true appreciation of evidence.

10. Mr. Rizvi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the

Vigilance Department, on the other hand, has submitted that the

prosecution could successfully prove its case beyond all reasonable

doubt regarding the demand of gratification being made by the

appellant. P.W.2 in presence of all the witnesses at the time of pre-

raid preparation has narrated the harassment mated out to him and the

illegal gratification demanded by the appellant. Therefore, there is no

doubt left in the mind of the learned trial Court while appreciating the

evidence that, there was a pre-demand made by the appellant to P.W.2

for disbursing the security amount of Rs.500/-. The evidence of

demand is further fortified from the evidence of P.Ws.1, 5, 6 and 9.

Mr. Rizvi, further submitted that the evidence regarding acceptance of

the tainted fifty ruppes note by the appellant is overwhelming on

record. Since the appellant has admittedly accepted the tainted

amount unless otherwise explained by him, the presumption under

section 20 would operate against him. He further submitted that even

Page 13 of 17

if for the sake of argument, it is stated that the evidence on record

regarding ‘demand’ is lacking, even then once an accused accepts the

bribe, the burden shifts on him to explain the circumstances to prove

his innocence as contemplated under Section 20 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act. Mr. Rizvi, has relied upon the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1992 SC 1201, in the case

of B. Hanumanta Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. In the present

case, the learned trial Court, while dealing with the evidence, arrived

at a conclusion that the accused-appellant has accepted the tainted

amount as an illegal gratification. However, the appellant could not

discharge his obligation/burden to explain the circumstances by which

he has accepted the tainted amount. Therefore, the presumption under

Section 20 directly operates in the present case. In paragraph-16 of

the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court has recorded the

reasonings for which the evidence found to be satisfactory regarding

‘acceptance”. Paragraph-16 reads thus:

“16. Even conceding for the sake of argument it is accepted

that the accused had no control over the file under Ext.16, nor

had any intention to deal with the file, the law is well settled

that the court is not bound to examine whether the accused had

capacity to help the decoy (P.W.2) to get back his security

deposit, which finds support from the decisions reported in

1969 Criminal Law Journals page-1 equal to A.I.R. 1968

Supreme Court 1419 (Shiv Raj Singh… vrs. Delhi

Administration) where-in it has been held as follows:

Page 14 of 17

“When a public servant is charged u/s. 161 of pena l

code and it is alleged that the illegal gratification was

taken by him for doing or procuring an official act, it

is not necessary for the court to consider whether or

not the accused is a public servant was capable of

doing or intended to do such an act ……..”

Similarly in the decision reported in 1976 Crimin al Law

Journals 1180 equal to A.I.R. 1976 Supreme Court 1497

(Chaturdas Bhagawandas Patel…. Vrs. The State of Gujarat)

where-in their lordship held as follows:-

“The section does not require that the public servant

means, in fact, be in a position to do the official act,

favour, or service at the time of demand or receipt of

gratification. To constitute an offence under this

section it is enough if the public servant who

accepted the gratification takes it by inducing a

belief or by holding to be that he would render

assistance to the giver ‘with any other public

servant’ and the giver gives the gratification under

that belief.”

Therefore, from the materials available in record and in view

of the principles as laid down by the apex Court, I came to the

conclusion that the tainted amount (M.O.I) was accepted by

the accused as an illegal remuneration.”

11. For the reasons as stated above, this court is fully in agreement

with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 21.06.1999 passed by the learned Additional Special Judge,

(Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. No.55/4 of 1992/89. Hence, the

Criminal Appeal vis-à-vis the impugned judgment of conviction

recorded by the learned trial Court against the appellant for the

offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the P.C. Act stands affirmed.

Page 15 of 17

12. At this stage, Ms. Mishra, learned Counsel, submitted that the

incident dates back to the year 1985. At that time, the appellant was

aged about 45 years and, as such, he is now more than 70 years old.

Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Abdul Hamid v.

State of Orissa

1

, she contended that in a similar case involving an

aged offender under the Prevention of Corruption Act, this Court had

extended the benefit of the proviso to Section 5(2) of the un-amended

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said proviso empowers the

sentencing Court to reduce the sentence below the prescribed

minimum of one year upon recording special reasons. In the said

decision, it was held thus:

“15. Regard being had to the fact that the appellant is more

than 80 years of age, I am inclined to accept the submission

made by Ms. Dei, learned Amicus Curiae. The proviso to

Section 5(2) of the un-amended Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 empowers the sentencing Court to reduce the sentence

below the minimum sentence of one year by recording sufficient

reasons. The provision reads as under:-

"5. Criminal misconduct in discharge of official duty- (1) A

public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal

misconduct:-

(a) XXX XXX XXX

(b) XXX XXX XXX

(c) XXX XXX XXX

(d) XXX XXX XXX

(e) XXX XXX XXX

1

CRA No.150 of 1992

Page 16 of 17

(2) Any public servant, who commits criminal misconduct shall

be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be

less than one year but which may extend to seven years and

shall also be liable to fine:

Provided that the court may, for any special reasons recorded

in writing impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one

year.”

16. Accordingly, while confirming the conviction recorded

against appellant, the sentence awarded by the learned trial

Court for the reasons stated above is liable to be varied.

Sentence order passed by the trial Court is accordingly

modified and the appellant is sentenced to undergo R.I. of one

week with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of making the payment,

the appellant shall undergo further R.I. for two days.”

13. Therefore, considering the submission advanced by the learned

Counsel and having regard to the fact that the occurrence relates back

to the year 1985 and the appellant, who was aged about 45 years at

the time of the incident, has now more than 70 years of age, this Court

finds force in the plea for reduction of sentence. This Court also takes

note of the ratio laid down in Abdul Hamid (supra) wherein, in

similar circumstances involving an aged convict under the Prevention

of Corruption Act, the benefit of the proviso to Section 5(2) of the un-

amended Act was extended by reducing the sentence below the

statutory minimum upon recording special reasons.

Thus, while maintaining the conviction recorded against the

appellant, the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court is modified

in exercise of the power under the proviso to Section 5(2) of the un-

amended Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In view of the

Page 17 of 17

advanced age of the appellant and the long lapse of time since the

occurrence, this Court deems it just and proper to sentence the

appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one week

and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand). In default of

payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo further rigorous

imprisonment for a period of three days.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.

(S.S. Mishra)

Judge

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

Dated the 16

th

Day of April 2026/ Subhasis Mohanty