The Orissa High Court has ruled that the mere passage of time cannot be used as a shield against prosecution in corruption cases, while refusing to quash a vigilance case pending against a former tehsildar for over two decades.
Right to Speedy Trial vs. Nature of Allegations
Justice S K Panigrahi acknowledged that the right to a speedy trial is an essential part of Article 21 of the Constitution. However, he emphasized that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed solely because they have been pending for a long period. The court must consider factors such as the nature of the allegations, the number of witnesses, the stage of the trial, and any dilatory tactics adopted by the accused.
Case Background
The ruling came while dismissing a petition filed by former tehsildar Umakanta Kar, who sought termination of criminal proceedings from a case registered in 2005 at Berhampur Vigilance police station. Kar argued that continuing the case after more than 20 years violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial and caused severe prejudice and harassment.
The case involves alleged irregularities in the disbursement of compensation during land acquisition for the widening of National Highway 5. Vigilance authorities claimed that compensation was released based on inflated valuations and false enumeration of mango trees on the acquired land, causing wrongful loss to the state exchequer. Kar was serving as tehsildar and competent authority at Khallikote at the relevant time.
Timeline of Proceedings
The alleged offences occurred in 2004. The FIR was lodged on September 30, 2005, and the charge sheet was filed in October 2009. Cognisance was taken in November 2009, and charges were framed in November 2021. Of the 15 prosecution witnesses cited, seven have already been examined, and the trial continues before the special judge (vigilance) in Berhampur.
Court's Observations
Justice Panigrahi observed that the delay was not entirely the prosecution's fault. Proceedings stalled for a considerable period after a co-accused challenged the case before the high court in 2021. Kar himself approached the high court in 2025 challenging the cognisance order before withdrawing his petition.
The court also rejected Kar's contention regarding the need for official sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, noting that Kar had retired before the filing of the charge sheet and taking of cognisance. Finding no exceptional circumstances warranting interference, Justice Panigrahi dismissed the petition on May 22, allowing the vigilance trial to proceed.
