Two-decade delay no ground to scrap corruption trial, says Orissa HC

Cuttack: Orissa high court has held that mere passage of time cannot be a shield against prosecution in corruption cases, while refusing to quash a vigilance case pending against a former tehsildar for over two decades.While acknowledging that the right to a speedy trial forms an essential part of Article 21 of the Constitution, Justice S K Panigrahi has said that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed solely because they remained pending for a long period.“Factors such as the nature of the allegations, number of witnesses, stage of the trial and any dilatory tactics adopted by the accused persons are also required to be taken into consideration,” the judge has observed.The ruling came while the court recently dismissed a petition filed by former tehsildar Umakanta Kar, who sought termination of criminal proceedings arising out of a case registered in 2005 at Berhampur Vigilance police station. Kar contended that continuation of the case after more than 20 years violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial, and caused severe prejudice and harassment.The case stemmed from alleged irregularities in the disbursement of compensation during land acquisition for the widening of NH-5.

Vigilance authorities alleged that compensation was released on the basis of inflated valuation and false enumeration of mango trees standing 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.The judgment noted that the alleged offences occurred in 2004, FIR was lodged on Sept 30, 2005, and charge sheet filed in Oct 2009.

Cognisance was taken in Nov 2009, while charges were framed in Nov 2021. Of the 15 prosecution witnesses cited in the charge sheet, seven have already been examined, and the trial is continuing before the special judge (vigilance), Berhampur.Justice Panigrahi observed that the delay was not entirely the prosecution’s fault. Proceedings remained stalled for a considerable period after a co-accused challenged the case before the high court in 2021.

Kar himself also approached the high court in 2025 challenging the cognisance order before withdrawing his petition.Rejecting other contentions, including the plea regarding official sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the court held that it was not required as Kar 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.