The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution of a public servant can be quashed if the alleged disproportionate assets are reduced to less than 10% of the total income, and the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Panigrahi, J. - This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings emanating from FIR No.45 dated 11.08.2016 leading to Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case No.45 of 2016 corresponding to GR (V) Case No.33/2016(v) for alleged commission of offences u/s.13(2), r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PCA') and u/s.109 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') which is pending in the Court of learned Special Judge Vigilance, Berhampur.

2. The facts leading to the present matter, in nutshell, is that upon receiving information regarding the petitioner's assets, searches were conducted at the petitioner's residence and at those of his relatives, after which his movable and immovable assets were assessed to be valued at Rs.74,54,526/-. His income for the check period between 01.01.2005 to 11.05.2016 was assessed to be Rs.31,70,057/- and the approximate expenditure was assessed to be Rs.13,60,521/-. Based on the above figures, the value of the disproportionate assets possessed by the present petitioner was estimated to be at Rs.56,44,990/-. On the basis of the aforementioned information, Vigilance GR Case No.33/2016(v) was registered and investigation commenced. However, till date the investigation has not been completed and no final form has been filed.

3. Challenging the long-drawn investigation, the petitioner had approached this Court in CRLMC No.1843/2019, whereby vide its order dated 06.01.2020, this Court was pleased to direct that the Vigilance authorities shall conclude the investigation expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of the order. The relevant portion of this Court's order dated 06.01.2020 in CRLMC No.1843/2019 is reproduced below:

'Learned counsel for the Vigilance Department would submit that the disproportionate assets, if any, of the petitioner is going to be assessed in the light of the affidavit as stated above to which the counsel for the petitioner has no objection but submits to conclude the investigation expeditiously.

In view of the aforesaid affidavit of the Vigilance department, it is directed that the Vigilance shall do the needful to file the final form basing on the evidence collected and in the light of the affidavit filed within three months from today but adhering to the Department Circular as stated in the affidavit. With the aforesaid order, this criminal Misc. Case stands disposed of.'

4. Furthermore, the father of the petitioner also approached this Court in CRLMP No.1594 of 2020, praying that the household property listed at Sl. No.1 of the FIR, valued at Rs. 51,33,629/-, Plot No. 386 vide Patta No.102 in Rikapallimouza, Chatrapur listed at Sl. No.3 of the FIR, valued at Rs.2,20,412/- and Plot No.387 vide Patta No.229/837 in Rikapalli mouza, Chatrapur listed at Sl. No.4 of the FIR, valued at Rs.1,10,206/- be struck off from the FIR registered against the petitioner as these three properties belonged to him and not the petitioner and therefore the same could not be included in calculating the alleged disproportionate assets of his son. This Court vide its order dated 01.02.2021 in CRLMP No.1594 of 2020, was pleased to allow the prayer of the father of the petitioner and directed the vigilance authorities to proceed with the investigation excluding the aforementioned three properties. The relevant portion of this Court's order dated 01.02.2021 in CRLMP No.1594 of 2020 is reproduced below:

'Heard Mr. J. Samantaray, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. T.K.Acharya, Learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. N.Moharana, Learned Additional Standing Counsel Vigilance through Video Conferencing Mode. According to Mr. Samantray, the grievance of the petitioner in the present case relates to inclusion of this household property at Sl.No.1 and his Plot bearing No.386 & 387 at Sl.No.3 &4 under the heading ' Immoveab