Allegations Of Demand & Acceptance Of Illegal Gratification Can’t Be Lightly Interdicted At Threshold When Circumstances Warrant Thorough Judicial Examination: Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court was considering a criminal case in which the petitioner sought the quashing of a corruption matter.
While upholding an order directing further investigation in a case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Orissa High Court has held that the allegations pertaining to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification cannot be lightly interdicted at the threshold, especially when the materials collected disclose prima facie circumstances warranting a thorough judicial examination during trial.
The High Court was considering a criminal case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi held, “This Court is guided by the enduring constitutional principle that corruption by public servants strikes at the very heart of democratic governance and institutional integrity. Allegations pertaining to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification cannot be lightly interdicted at the threshold, especially when the materials collected disclose prima facie circumstances that warrant a thorough judicial examination during trial.”
Advocate Uma Charan Mishra represented the Petitioner, while Addl. Standing Counsel (Vigilance) Niranjan Moharana represented the opposite party.
Factual Background
A vigilance case was registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, when the first Petitioner was working as Tahasildar, Baranga and the second Petitioner was functioning as a private Amin, on the allegation of demand of illegal gratification of Rs 4,00,000, out of which Rs 50,000 was to be paid as the first instalment. A trap was laid by the Vigilance authorities. It was alleged that on the instructions of the first Petitioner, the bribe amount of Rs 50,000 was handed over to the second Petitioner. However, during the trap, the tainted currency notes could not be recovered. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a Final Report stating that due to the non-recovery of tainted money and lack of corroboration from the overhearing witness, no prima facie case was made out.
The Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar, declined to accept the Final Report and directed further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Despite repeated directions of the Trial Court on multiple occasions, no final form was submitted for a considerable length of time.
Reasoning
The Bench reiterated that in offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the gravamen of the offence resides in the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. “The recovery of tainted money undoubtedly serves as a potent piece of corroborative evidence; however, it is not the sole sine qua non for sustaining a prosecution. In appropriate cases, the twin facets of demand and acceptance may be legitimately established through a constellation of surrounding circumstances, the oral testimony of credible witnesses, and other incriminating materials unearthed during the investigative process”, it added.
The Bench noted that the materials on record prima facie indicated that the complainant levied a specific allegation regarding the demand of illegal gratification by the first petitioner. It was further alleged that during the trap proceeding, the complainant handed over the tainted amount to the second Petitioner, acting pursuant to the instructions of the first Petitioner.
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the litigation was marred by considerable procedural delay subsequent to the order directing further investigation. The records revealed a pattern of repeated adjournments and prolonged pendency without the submission of a final report.
“Such institutional torpor undoubtedly merits serious judicial concern. The expansive guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution enshrines the right to a fair, just, and expeditious investigation and trial. Investigating agencies are duty-bound to act with alacrity and a sense of responsibility, particularly, in corruption cases involving public servants, where societal confidence in institutional probity hangs in the balance”, it added.
Considering the profound delay that had plagued the matter since its inception in 2015, the Bench stated, “Investigative lassitude erodes public trust in the criminal justice delivery system. Such delay not only defeats the rights of the accused to a speedy trial but also undermines the profound societal interest in the effective prosecution of corruption offences.”
Thus, holding that the impugned order directing further investigation did not suffer from any patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity that would warrant interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, the Bench dismissed the case.
Cause Title: Akhaya Kumar Rout v. State of Odisha (Vigilance) (Case No.: CRLMC No.1496 of 2025)