Back
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Ashok Kumar Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha (Vigilance) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.S. Mishra, J.
The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, assailing the 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. By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge rejected the petitioner's prayer for discharging him from offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 (as it stood prior to amendment) read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code , 1860.
2. Heard Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel (Vigilance) appearing for the opposite party-State.
3. The present revision petition arises out of VGR Case No. 29 of 2003, which emanates from the allegations of irregularities in the tendering and execution of a government contract 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, Baripada. The Vigilance Department, Odish
The absence of prior sanction for prosecution and inordinate delay in proceedings violate the right to a speedy trial, rendering the case against the petitioner unsustainable.
Prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act necessitates timely sanction even post-retirement; undue delay and absence of valid sanction undermine the right to a fair trial.
The court emphasized the necessity of a clearly defined check period in corruption cases, ruling that excessive delays and insufficient evidence undermine the prosecution's ability to establish a cas....
The prolonged pendency of a criminal trial does not inherently warrant quashing of proceedings, and disputed factual issues must be determined at trial rather than through inherent jurisdiction.
The requirement of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not applicable if the accused has ceased to be a public servant before cognizance is taken.
Delay in criminal proceedings may constitute an infringement of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, warranting quashing of charges if allegations do not establish a prima facie case.
Delay in disciplinary proceedings without justification violates principles of administrative justice, warranting quashing of proceedings.
No sanction under Section 19 PC Act required to prosecute retired public servant if retired before court cognizance; PC Act protection ceases post-retirement.
Point of law: Inherent power of a High Court – Rejection of quash petition - complaint clearly makes out commission of cognizable offences both under the PC Act as well as IPC, it is impermissible to....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
