Odisha HC acquits doctor of bribery charges after 16 years

Published On 2023-08-26 05:45 GMT   |   Update On 2023-08-26 05:45 GMT

Cuttack: The Orissa High Court has acquitted a government doctor who was convicted of accepting a bribe of Rs 300 from a patient by the order of a special vigilance court 16 years ago.A doctor was freed of bribery charges by the Orissa High Court while hearing an appeal to a case in which he was sentenced to six months in jail by a special vigilance court around sixteen years ago. Dr...

Login or Register to read the full article

Cuttack: The Orissa High Court has acquitted a government doctor who was convicted of accepting a bribe of Rs 300 from a patient by the order of a special vigilance court 16 years ago.

A doctor was freed of bribery charges by the Orissa High Court while hearing an appeal to a case in which he was sentenced to six months in jail by a special vigilance court around sixteen years ago. 

Dr Pradeepta Kumar Praharaj, an assistant surgeon at the government hospital at Khatiguda in Nabarangpur district was booked by the Vigilance after finding Rs 300 from his office on September 14, 1998, alleging it to be a bribe he collected from the patient. 

Also Read:Some doctors disregard human life, maligning noble profession: HC refuses to quash FIR under IPC 304A against Specialist

The Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur found him guilty of taking bribe, gave him six-month prison time and directed him to pay a fine of Rs 1,000 on 22nd March 2007. 

The doctor got out on bail after he filed a criminal appeal against the trial court verdict in the high court. The high court order, as per a media report in the Odisha Bytes, read, "There is no sufficient, cogent and reliable evidence available on record to establish the guilt of Dr Pradeepta Kumar Praharaj. In the absence of any clinching evidence relating to the demand and acceptance of the bribe money by the appellant, no guilt can be fastened upon him in a callous manner." 

Justice SK Sahoo said, "The reasoning assigned by the trial court is faulty and genuine material evidence available on record in favour of the appellant has been overlooked and it appears that the impugned judgment is one-sided in favour of the prosecution." He added, "In the circumstances since the guilt of the appellant has not been established beyond all reasonable doubt, I am constrained to give benefit of doubt to the appellant. The law is well settled that mere recovery of the bribe amount from the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification." 

Also Read:Fire breaks out in ICU at Odisha's PRM Medical College

Tags:    
Article Source : with inputs

Disclaimer: This site is primarily intended for healthcare professionals. Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement/treatment or prescription. Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. © 2024 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd

Our comments section is governed by our Comments Policy . By posting comments at Medical Dialogues you automatically agree with our Comments Policy , Terms And Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Similar News