Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
Akhaya Kumar Rout and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
State of Odisha (Vigilance) – Opp. Party
CRLMC No.1496 of 2025
Decided on 22.5.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Uma Charan Mishra, Advocate.
For Opp. Party: Mr. Niranjan Moharana, Addl. Standing Counsel (Vigilance)
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Illegal gratification – Recovery of tainted money is not a sine qua non for sustaining prosecution.
(2) Further investigation can be directed even in absence of any formal prayer.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 173(8) and 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 193(9) and 528] – Demand of illegal gratification – Quashing Petition – In offences punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, gravamen of offence resides in demand and acceptance of illegal gratification – Recovery of tainted money undoubtedly serves as a potent piece of corroborative evidence; however, it is not the sole sine qua non for sustaining prosecution – Investigating Officer had myopically concentrated on non-recovery of tainted money, while conspicuously overlooking other incriminating circumstances pertaining to demand and acceptance – Power of Magistrate or Special Judge to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is imbued with purpose of advancing cause of justice and ensuring an investigation that is comprehensive, fair, and effective – Mere absence of formal prayer for further investigation from either Vigilance Department or complainant does not per se divest Court of its inherent jurisdiction to issue such direction – Inherent jurisdiction of this Court cannot be converted into appellate forum for weighing sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence – Impugned order directing further investigation, affirmed. (Paras 8, 10, 16 and 19)
Result: Criminal Miscellaneous Case dismissed.
ORDER
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.—The Petitioners have filed the present CRLMC under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in V.G.R. Case No.47 of 2015 pending before the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar, including the order dated 11.12.2017 whereby further investigation was directed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
I. Factual matrix of the case:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) While Petitioner No.1 was working as Tahasildar, Baranga and Petitioner No.2 was functioning as a private Amin, a Vigilance P.S. Case No.40 dated 03.09.2015 was registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegation of demand of illegal gratification of Rs.4,00,000/-, out of which Rs.50,000/- was to be paid as first instalment.
(ii) A trap was accordingly laid by the Vigilance authorities. It is alleged that on the instruction of Petitioner No.1, the bribe amount of Rs.50,000/- was handed over to Petitioner No.2. However, during the trap, the tainted currency notes could not be recovered.
(iii) Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted Final Report No.40 dated 24.12.2016 stating that due to non-recovery of tainted money and lack of corroboration from the overhearing witness, no prima facie case was made out.
(iv) The learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar, however, vide order dated 11.12.2017, declined to accept the Final Report and directed further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
(v) It is not in dispute that thereafter, despite repeated directions of the learned trial Court on multiple occasions, no final form has been submitted for a considerable length of time.
II. Submissions on behalf of the petitioners:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) Demand, acceptance and recovery are the three essential elements of the offence for conviction of an accused U/s-13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC. Act, 1988, as laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere v. C.B. Nagaraj, 2025 INSC 736 Therefore, the Opposite Party had rightly filed the closure report before the learned trial Court vide Annexure-2. However, the learned trial Court, instead of accepting Annexure-2, directed further investigation vide Annexure-3, which is per se illegal, inasmuch as no recovery of the tainted notes was made at the spot on the date of the trap, thereby causing the alleged offence to fail. Neither the Vigilance nor the complainant had ever prayed for further investigation. Under such circumstances, the learned Trial Court, in the absence of corpus delicti, directing further investigation on 11.12.2017 and thereafter on 30 occasions asking the Vigilance to submit the final form, amounts to a miscarriage of justice.
(ii) The Opposite Party has failed to recover the tainted notes since 03.09.2015 till date; hence, the order dated 11.12.2017 (Annexure-3) has become redundant and obsolete. Therefore, the continuance of VGR Case No.47 of 2015 in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar, amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
(iii) The Opposite Party, in its counter, has taken a stand that the demand by Petitioner No.1 and constructive acceptance by Petitioner No.2 were established during the trap proceedings; however, the counter is silent as to where the trap money went and why the Opposite Party did not comply with the direction of the learned trial Court dated 11.12.2017 for a prolonged period of 8 years. The law is well settled by this Court in its recent Judgment dated 27.02.2026 in Dr. Rabindra Kumar Jena &Prof. (Dr). Truptirekha Swain v. State of Odisha (Vigilance), CRLMC No.3829/2025 and 3682 of 2024 decided on 13.03.2026 wherein at Para-26, it has
