CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has declined to interfere in a corruption case pending for more than two decades against a former tehsildar, holding that the delay in trial alone cannot be a ground to terminate criminal proceedings, particularly when the allegations involve misuse of public office and loss to the public exchequer.
Justice SK Panigrahi dismissed a petition filed by former Khallikote tehsildar Umakanta Kar who had sought quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of a Vigilance case registered in 2005.
The case relates to alleged irregularities in disbursement of compensation during land acquisition for expansion of NH-5. Vigilance authorities had accused Kar and others of facilitating payment of inflated compensation on the basis of alleged false valuation and enumeration of mango trees standing on acquired land, resulting in wrongful loss to the government.
Kar contended that continuation of the trial after over 20 years violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and amounted to abuse of the judicial process.
Rejecting the plea in a recent judgement, Justice Panigrahi observed that while the right to a speedy trial is an integral component of a fair trial, criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because of the passage of time. “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 ruled.
The judgement noted that the alleged offences date back to 2004, while the FIR was registered in September, 2005. A charge sheet was filed in October 2009, cognisance taken in November the same year, and charges framed in November 2021. Out of 15 prosecution witnesses, seven have already been examined and trial is continuing before the special judge (Vigilance), Berhampur.
The HC pointed out that the delay could not be attributed solely to the prosecution. Proceedings had remained stalled for a considerable period after a co-accused challenged the case before the HC in 2021. Kar himself had approached the HC in 2025 challenging the order taking cognisance, though he later withdrew that petition.
Justice Panigrahi accepted the state’s stand that sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act was not required as Kar had retired before submission of the chargesheet and taking of cognisance. Finding no exceptional circumstances warranting intervention, the HC dismissed the petition and allowed the trial to proceed.