Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.K.MOHAPATRA
Golak Prasad Mohapatra – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa (Vigilance) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Mohapatra, J.
1. The present CRLMC application has been filed by the Petitioner, who happens to be the president of Orissa Consumer's Cooperative Federation Ltd., with a prayer to quash the FIR bearing Vigilance Case No.30 dated 02.06.2010, under Annexure-1, the Charge-sheet No.05 dated 30.03.2013 under Annexure-2 and the entire criminal proceeding arising out of T.R. No.42 of 2013 which corresponds to Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.30, involving commission of offences under sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 (“PC Act”) and sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC , pending in the court of the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judges, Bhubaneswar.
FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
2. The factual matrix of the present case, as gathered from the FIR and Final Form, at Annexures-1 and 2 respectively, and bereft of unnecessary details, is that earlier on 02.06.2010 Bhubaneswar Vigilance FIR No.30 was lodged pursuant to a report filed by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell Unit Office, Bhubaneswar, alleging irregularities in distribution of coal by the 'Orissa Consumer's Cooperative Federation Ltd' (hereinafter 'OCCF') during the
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.
The court quashed criminal proceedings due to the absence of a prima facie case and inordinate delay in investigation, which violated the Petitioners' right to a speedy trial.
A legitimate prosecution should not be stifled by the inherent power under Section 482; delays must be evaluated in context and cannot independently quash serious allegations.
The right to a speedy trial is constitutionally protected under Article 21, and unreasonable delays, particularly when not caused by the accused, can warrant quashing ongoing criminal proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, leading to the quash....
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.
: While speedy trial is a fundamental right of every accused but then it is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rule that delay in holding trial would always result in quashing of criminal pro....
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
