CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has expressed serious concern over systemic delays and procedural lapses that undermine anti-corruption prosecutions, while quashing a Vigilance case against senior IAS officer Bijay Ketan Upadhyaya, presently serving as the secretary of Odia, Language and Culture department.
The Vigilance case was registered in 2019 under sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 120B of the Indian Penal Code with allegations that Upadhyaya, while serving as director of Horticulture, demanded and accepted illegal gratification in connection with the release of bills of an empanelled supplier.
The single judge bench of Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi set aside the cognisance order dated January 16, 2023, passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar and all consequential proceedings against Upadhyaya.
In a detailed judgment on April 17, Justice Panigrahi observed that the case exemplified a broader pattern of delay plaguing Vigilance proceedings. Justice Panigrahi pointed to prolonged timelines across all stages, from investigation to charge framing, stating, “It is a matter of serious concern that courts are repeatedly being confronted with vigilance prosecutions that remain pending in a state of abnormal inertia.”
He added that investigations often take years, followed by further delays in filing charge sheets and initiating trial.
In the present case, the order of cognisance was passed as far back as on January 16, 2023 but despite passage of considerable time thereafter, charges have not been framed and the trial has not effectively commenced, Justice Panigrahi noted but stressed that delay alone may not always justify quashing proceedings.
Observing that in this case, it was compounded by a flawed sanction process under anti-corruption law, rendering the prosecution legally unsustainable, the Judge held, “Where such delay is coupled with a serious procedural infirmity touching the validity of sanction and the legality of cognizance, the prejudice assumes a more concrete character.”
While acknowledging that courts typically refrain from interfering in ongoing investigations, he clarified that “such restraint cannot be understood as a licence for the investigating agency to keep the matter pending for an indefinite or unreasonable period.”