The court emphasized that the prosecution must accurately verify and establish facts regarding disproportionate assets before filing charges, stressing the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Mohapatra, J.

1. The above named Petitioner, who is a government employee, has been implicated as an accused in a case involving the charge of possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, initiated at the instance of the Vigilance Department, Government of Odisha. Consequently, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which corresponds to Section 528 of the BNSS .

2. By filing the present application the Petitioner seeks to invoke the inherent power of this Court to quash order dated 15.05.2024 under Annexure-5 and consequently quash the order taking cognizance of the offences dated 20.04.2023 in G.R. Case No.33/2016(v), pending in the Court of learned Special Judge Vigilance, Berhampur which arises out of Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case No.45 of 2016.

3. The case of the prosecution, on a narrow compass, is that on getting reliable information regarding acquisition of disproportionate assets by the Petitioner, the Vigilance Police, Odisha conducted a search at his residence, office and residence of his relatives simultaneously. On the basis of such search, it has been alleged by the Vigilance Police that immovable and movable assets to the tune of Rs.74,54,526/-, including the house standing in the name of the father of the Petitioner, was assessed to be disproportionate to the known sources of income of the Petitioner. The cost of the house, which stands in the name of the father of the Petitioner, was assessed at Rs.51,33,629/- alone. On a detailed calculation and after taking into account the legitimate income and expenditure of the Petitioner, the department has arrived at a conclusion that the Petitioner has amassed disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.56,44,990/-. Accordingly, a vigilance case was registered against the Petitioner bearing Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case No.45 dated 11.08.2016 for commission of offences punishable under Section 109 of IPC read with Sections 13 (2), 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act. In the FIR, the wife of the Petitioner has also been shown as a co-accused.

4. After registration of the FIR by the Berhampur Vigilance P.S., the investigation of the case was carried out by the I.O. Although the case is of the year 2016, however, finally a charge-sheet was filed on 13.12.2022 by Mr. Sarat Chandra Sahu, DSP Vigilance, who is the I.O. in this case.

5. It would be pertinent to mention here that before filing the present application another CRLMC application bearing CRLMC No.1843 of 2019 was filed at the instance of the Petitioner which was disposed of vide order dated 06.01.2020 with a direction to the Opposite Party to file the final form within three months adhering to the departmental circulars. Similarly, the father of the Petitioner filed CRLMP No.1594 of 2020 with a prayer for deletion of his household property and plot (bearing No.386 & 387) from the FIR on the ground that the same had been erroneously included in the Petitioner’s assets only with the intention to make out a case of disproportionate assets against the present Petitioner. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.02.2021 disposed of the CRLMP application with a direction to the Opposite Party to exclude those properties from the investigation in Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case No.45 of 2016.

6. While this was the position and before filing of the final charge- sheet, the Petitioner had earlier filed another application bearing CRLMC No.687 of 2021 with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding on the ground th