Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Single Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra allowed a criminal revision petition challenging the cognizance and framing of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court set aside the order dated 04.09.2024 of the Special Judge (Vigilance), Baripada, noting procedural improprieties including "deliberate delay," lack of sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the "failure to justify inordinate prosecution lag." The Court observed that "prosecution cannot keep waiting till a public servant retires and then choose to file charge-sheet" to avoid obtaining prior sanction for prosecution.

The present criminal revision was filed by a retired government officer, who was sought to be prosecuted in VGR Case No. 29 of 2003, stemming from Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 29 of 2003. The case pertained to alleged irregularities in a government tender related to the construction of the "Jambhira Earth Dam from RD 4200 Mtr. to 4500 Mtr. (Reach-IV) with stepped Spillway" under the Subarnarekha Irrigation Project.

Also Read: Gang Rape | Supreme Court Upholds Conviction as Penetrative Act by One Fixes Guilt on All If Common Intention Exists | Life Sentence Reduced to 10 Years

Following allegations of inflated tender approvals, unauthorized modifications, and excess payments, the Odisha Vigilance Department initiated an inquiry. Initially, a Final Report dated 08.08.2006 recommended departmental action, asserting that the alleged excess amounts could be adjusted in the final bill or recovered from contractors.

Despite this, cognizance was taken by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Baripada only on 02.09.2017, nearly 14 years after the FIR was registered on 10.07.2003. The petitioner had retired on 30.12.2009, and no sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act or Section 197 CrPC was ever obtained.

The petitioner challenged the rejection of his discharge application, arguing that:

1. He was not named in the FIR.

2. The delay of 14 years violated his right to a fair and speedy trial.

3. No prima facie evidence existed showing dishonest intent or personal gain.

4. No prior sanction was obtained under Section 197 CrPC, which remains mandatory even after retirement for IPC offences.

5. The same allegations in VGR No. 35 of 2003 (another phase of the same project) were closed and accepted by a court on 01.07.2010.

6. The Court noted that the case was listed 54 times between 2007 and 2017, with no protest petition filed, before cognizance was suddenly taken at the 55th hearing.

Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra made detailed judicial findings, observing procedural delay and abuse of process. The Court quoted extensively from Supreme Court precedents to support its conclusions:

• On delay, it referred to Mahendra Lal Das v. State of Bihar (2002) 1 SCC 149: "The prosecution has miserably failed to explain the delay of more than 13 years by now, in granting the sanction... Cases relating to corruption are to be dealt with swiftly, promptly and without delay."

• Addressing lack of sanction, the Court relied on State of Punjab v. Labh Singh, (2014) 16 SCC 807: "The prosecution cannot keep waiting till a public servant retires and then choose to file charge-sheet... thereby setting at naught the protection available..."

• The Court recorded: "The learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 120-B of the IPC without there being a sanction under Section 197 of the Cr. P.C."

• On the issue of recoverable loss, the Court observed: "Excess amount paid through the running bill could be adjusted... the investigating agency has rightly concluded that there is no criminal offence made out."

• The judgment further observed: "The cognizance has been taken by the learned Court below oblivious of the fact that the prosecution has deliberately waited for the retirement of the petitioner to prosecute him so as to avoid the rigors of obtaining the sanction."

• Referring to R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225, the Court reiterated that: "The right to speedy trial encompasses all the stages... The delay of 14 years for taking cognizance... without there being an iota of explanation vitiates the entire proceeding."

Also Read: Rajasthan HC Upholds Right to Dignity and Education | Orders Victim Girl's Stay at Balika Grah till Majority | Directs Free Education, Medical Care and Adoption of Newborn through Legal Means

Setting aside the impugned order, the Court ordered:

"I am inclined to allow the present petition and set aside the impugned order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Baripada in VGR Case No. 29 of 2003 arising out of Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 29 of 2003.

The CRLREV is accordingly allowed."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. D.P. Dhal, Senior Advocate

For the Opposite Party (State): Mr. Sangram Das, Standing Counsel (Vigilance)

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Das v. State of Odisha (Vigilance)

Case Number: CRLREV No. 647 of 2024

Bench: Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra

[Read/Download order]