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 case under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the learned A.D.J.- cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Dhenkanal in T.R. Case No.09 of 2023 arising out of Vigilance G.R. Case No.61 of 2012, whereby the learned trial Court rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioner seeking discharge from the offences under Sections 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the P.C. Act”).

2. The brief facts leading to the present Revision Petition are that the petitioner, a retired government auditor now aged 67 years, was serving as Auditor in the Local Fund Audit (LFA), Dhenkanal. On 07.07.2012, based on an intelligence input, officials of the Vigilance Department allegedly intercepted the petitioner outside his office premises and seized a sum of Rs.1,14,800/- from his possession. It was alleged that the said sum was illicitly collected from various officers of Kaniha Block to regularize audit objections.

3. An F.I.R. was registered under Sections 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d)(e) of the P.C. Act on the same day, i.e., 07.07.2012. However, despite the passage of more than 11 years, the investigating agency failed to conclude the investigation with due diligence and only submitted the charge-sheet belatedly on 21.09.2023. The sanction for prosecution was obtained much later on 25.08.2023.

4. The investigation revealed that the petitioner, Sarat Chandra Dash, then Auditor of the Local Fund Audit Office, Dhenkanal, was assigned to audit the accounts of Kaniha Block, Angul, during which he allegedly collected illegal gratification from various officers to overlook audit irregularities. Acting on credible intelligence, a Vigilance team intercepted him near the District Audit Office, Dhenkanal, on 07.07.2012. Upon search, Rs.1,14,800/- in cash along with various personal and official documents were recovered from his possession. The petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation to the source of the seized amount, and his statements were inconsistent and uncorroborated by any financial record.

5. Further investigation involved examination of his wife, brother, and other relatives, all of whom denied having given him any such amount. Verification of bank statements also showed no recent withdrawals justifying possession of the seized cash. The amount was found disproportionate to his known and legal sources of income. After a thorough investigation by multiple Vigilance Officers ranging for more than a decade and upon obtaining sanction from the competent authority, charge-sheet was filed on 21.09.2023 under Sections 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d)(e) of the P.C. Act, 1988, in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.61 of 2012.

6. Upon submission of the charge-sheet, the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Dhenkanal, vide order dated 03.10.2023 in V.G.R. Case No.61 of 2012 took cognizance of the offences based on sanction order, statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other connected documents form part of the challan filed by the I.O. arriving at a prima facie satisfaction.

7. The petitioner then challenged the said cognizance order by filing CRLMC No.5465 of 2023. This Court vide order dated 12.04.2024 while disposing of the same granted liberty to the petitioner to file a discharge petition before the learned trial Court.

8. The petitioner, according