Orissa High Court
Bijay Ketan Upadhyaya vs State Of Odisha (Vig.) …. Opposite … on 17 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1589 of 2025
Along with
CRLMC No.3441 of 2025
(From the order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.03 of 2023 arising out of
Cuttack Vigilance Cell P.S. Case No. 21 of 2019, taking cognizance of
offences under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 as amended, read with Section 120B of the IPC).
Bijay Ketan Upadhyaya .... Petitioner (s)
(In CRLMC No.1589 of 2025)
Pitabash @ Pitabasa @ Pitabas
Pradhan
(In CRLMC No.3441 of 2025)
-versus-
State of Odisha (Vig.) .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surya Prasad Misra, Sr. Adv.
along with associates
Mr. Devashis Panda, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Niranjan Moharana, SC
for the Department of Vigilance
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-16.03.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT: -17.04.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. Since the issues raised in both the above-mentioned CRLMCs involve
common question of fact and law, those were heard analogously and
are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
convenience and effective adjudication, CRLMC No.1589 of 2025 is
treated as the lead case.
2. The Petitioner, through the present CRLMC, calls in question the order
dated 16.01.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance,
Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 03 of 2023 arising out of Cuttack
Vigilance Cell P.S. Case No. 21 of 2019, whereby cognizance was taken
of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 as amended, read with Section 120B of the IPC,
against the Petitioner and another co-accused. The said proceeding
arises out of allegations relating to demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification in connection with the release of bills of an empaneled
supplier under the Directorate of Horticulture, Odisha, at a time when
the Petitioner was serving as Director of Horticulture.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this CRLMC are as follows:-
(i) The present CRLMC has been filed by the petitioner, who at the
relevant time was serving as Director of Horticulture, Odisha, assailing
the order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 03 of 2023 arising out of
Cuttack Vigilance Cell P.S. Case No. 21 of 2019, by which cognizance
was taken of offences under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 as amended, read with Section 120B of the IPC,
against the petitioner and another accused. The criminal proceeding
arises out of allegations concerning demand and acceptance of illegal
Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42gratification in connection with release of bills of a supplier engaged
with the Directorate of Horticulture.
(ii) The record shows that SRM Plastochem Pvt. Ltd. was an empaneled
supplier of micro irrigation systems to the Directorate of Horticulture,
Odisha under the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana, and the
complainant, Sri Subash Chandra Sahu, was its authorised
representative. The bills relating to such supplies, after district level
processing and verification, were required to be forwarded to the
Directorate for approval and release of payment. At the relevant time,
bills of the company were pending for payment.
(iii) On 04.09.2019, the complainant contacted the petitioner through
WhatsApp and thereafter met him in office in connection with release of
the pending bills. As reflected in the record, the prosecution case is that,
in the course of this interaction, a demand for illegal gratification was
made and the complainant was asked to remain in touch with Sri
Santosh Kumar Pattanayak, Relationship Manager, Yes Bank, Bapuji
Nagar Branch, Bhubaneswar. The material on record also refers to a
WhatsApp message sent later on the same date by the complainant to
the petitioner stating that he could make payment of only Rs.50,000/-
that day.
(iv) Thereafter, on 22.10.2019, the complainant approached the Vigilance
authorities and reported the matter. The record further indicates that by
that stage certain payments had already been released in favour of the
company and some bills had also been returned with objection. The
materials collected during investigation also show that, after 22.10.2019,
Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
payments were made to the company on 24.10.2019, 31.10.2019,
19.11.2019 and 26.11.2019, and that on, 30.12.2019 an additional amount
of Rs.7,07,578/- was paid to the company.
(v) On 15.11.2019, the complainant, accompanied by Vigilance officials and
witnesses, again met the petitioner. The record shows that this
interaction was arranged as part of the Vigilance exercise and that the
conversation was recorded in a digital device. The case materials also
show that during this meeting the issue of pending bills was discussed
and that the petitioner instructed the concerned Executive Engineer to
put up the bills after due scrutiny for approval and release of payment.
A memorandum containing transcript of the conversation was
thereafter prepared by the Vigilance authorities.
(vi) The prosecution record further refers to the role of Sri Pitabas Pradhan,
who was working in the Directorate, and to further communication
made to the complainant in relation to payment of the alleged bribe
amount through Sri Santosh Kumar Pattanayak. During investigation,
official records were collected regarding the position held by the
petitioner in the Directorate, the employment of Sri Santosh Kumar
Pattanayak in Yes Bank, and the engagement of Sri Pitabas Pradhan in
the Directorate of Horticulture.
(vii) On 29.12.2019, the written complaint formed the basis for registration of
the Vigilance case. On the following day, namely 30.12.2019, a trap was
laid near Yes Bank, Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneswar. In the course of the
said trap, Sri Santosh Kumar Pattanayak was allegedly apprehended
while receiving tainted money of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant.
Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
After the detection, the petitioner and the co-accused were arrested and
produced before the competent court.
(viii) During the course of investigation, the Vigilance authorities examined
witnesses, recorded statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.,
collected documentary materials from the Directorate of Horticulture
and other authorities, and also relied upon the recorded conversation,
seizure materials, and other records gathered during investigation. On
completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the
petitioner and the co-accused for the offences noted above, whereafter
the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar took cognizance by
order dated 16.01.2023, which is the order under challenge in the
present proceeding.
(ix) The present petition has thus been instituted seeking interference with
the aforesaid order of cognizance and with the consequential criminal
proceeding pending before the learned court below.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/complainant earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) It is submitted that the entire vigilance case, the FIR and the charge
sheet are the outcome of a motivated and engineered exercise,
undertaken not on the basis of any genuine material disclosing demand
or acceptance of illegal gratification, but as part of a larger conspiracy to
falsely implicate the petitioner. It was contended that the petitioner,
being a senior IAS officer with roots in the State, had on several
Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42occasions declined to act upon illegal and irregular oral directions of
certain powerful bureaucrats of the then Government, and that the
present case was set in motion to wreak vengeance and tarnish his
public image. According to the petitioner, the complainant was
persuaded and pressurised to lodge a false complaint, the Vigilance
officials conducted only a perfunctory investigation without
dispassionately evaluating the material collected, and even the sanction
for prosecution was procured by suppressing vital exculpatory material.
(ii) It was further argued that the foundational allegation of demand is
itself inherently unreliable. Counsel submitted that it was unusual and
against normal official practice for the complainant, who was merely
representing a supplier with pending bills, to send a WhatsApp
message early in the morning on 04.09.2019 seeking permission to meet
the petitioner at his residence. The petitioner, however, did not permit
any such private meeting and instead asked the complainant to meet
him in office at 10.30 a.m. as per official norms. At that office meeting,
according to the petitioner, he merely assured the complainant that the
pending dues would be processed expeditiously after due scrutiny and
verification of the bills in accordance with procedure. The allegation
that the petitioner then demanded one per cent of the bill amount as
bribe was described as wholly false.
(iii) The petitioner also disputed the prosecution reliance on the alleged
WhatsApp message stating “Could make 50 today”, contending that no
such demand had been made by him, that no reply was sent by him,
Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42and that the message, even as projected, could not by itself establish any
illegal demand.
(iv) Learned counsel next submitted that the subsequent conduct of the
parties and the official record wholly undermine the prosecution
theory. Though the complainant is said to have approached Vigilance
on 22.10.2019, on the apprehension that his bills would not be cleared
unless bribe was paid, the alleged trap was laid only on 15.11.2019, and
this delay, according to the petitioner, remains unexplained. More
importantly, even before and around that period, substantial payments
had already been released to the complainant’s company without any
alleged bribe whatsoever. Counsel stressed that amounts of
Rs.33,00,000/- and Rs. 28,75,686/- had been cleared after due verification
and credited to the company’s account, and that this by itself
demolishes the suggestion that payment of bribe was a precondition for
clearance of bills.
(v) It was further submitted that the complainant’s own version shows that
on 15.11.2019, in his presence, the petitioner instructed Executive
Engineer Sri Hota to put up the pending bills after due scrutiny for
approval and release of payment, which, according to counsel, is wholly
inconsistent with any corrupt demand and clearly reflects an intention
to process the bills in the ordinary course. On this basis, the petitioner
argued that there was absence of mens rea from the inception.
(vi) The petitioner also attacked the prosecution case regarding the alleged
intermediary role of Pitabas Pradhan and Santosh Kumar Pattanayak.
As regards Pitabas, it was submitted that he was only a data entry
Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
operator or contractual employee in the Directorate and had no official
authority to speak on behalf of the petitioner. Any alleged conversation
between him and the complainant, even if taken at face value, could not
be treated as a legally attributable demand by the petitioner. As regards
Santosh Kumar Pattanayak, counsel submitted that he was merely an
old college friend of the petitioner from Plus Two days, but that any
contact between the complainant and Santosh was entirely unknown to
and independent of the petitioner.
(vii) The specific case of the petitioner was that the Vigilance team, having
failed to entrap him directly, deliberately instructed the complainant to
hand over Rs.1 lakh to Santosh Kumar Pattanayak so that a case could
somehow be foisted against the petitioner. It was argued that if
payment of bribe had truly been the condition for release of bills, there
was no reason for bills amounting to nearly Rs.62 lakhs to be cleared
before any such alleged payment to Santosh Kumar Pattanayak.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that on the date
when the alleged bribe was said to have been handed over to Santosh,
the relevant pending bills had already been cleared, yet this crucial fact
was not fairly reflected by the Investigating Officer.
(viii) A major plank of the petitioner’s challenge was based on the alleged
suppression of exculpatory material. Learned counsel submitted that on
24.12.2019, the complainant again met the petitioner regarding pending
bills and that the conversation at that meeting was recorded in the
storage device carried by the complainant under Vigilance instructions.
However, according to the petitioner, the contents of that meeting were
Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
deliberately omitted from the FIR and were not properly brought on
record either by the complainant or by the Investigating Officer.
Counsel asserted that during that meeting the complainant repeatedly
offered to pay Rs. 1 lakh, but the petitioner sternly refused and said
twice, “I do not need it.” This, according to the petitioner, was
exculpatory material going to the root of the matter, since it directly
negatived both demand and acceptance.
(ix) It was then argued, with reliance on the decision in Ashok Kumar
Aggarwal v. CBI,1 that the prosecution was under an obligation to place
before the sanctioning authority all relevant material, including material
favourable to the accused, and that failure to do so vitiated the sanction
and tainted the entire prosecution.
(x) Counsel then submitted that the learned court below took cognizance
without proper application of judicial mind and despite the absence of
material constituting the ingredients of the offences under Sections 7
and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B IPC. The
petitioner emphasised that he was not present at the place of trap, no
tainted money was recovered from him, no physical acceptance by him
is alleged, and there is no material showing any prior meeting of minds
between him and the co-accused so as to attract conspiracy or
constructive receipt through an agent. Counsel submitted that even
taking the prosecution case at its highest, the material does not establish
any prior arrangement between the petitioner and the co-accused for
receipt of bribe on his behalf. It was also urged that the accompanying
1
(2014) 14 SCC 295
Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
witness did not speak of any demand by the petitioner on either
15.11.2019 or 30.12.2019, and that even the co-accused, upon
interrogation, did not state that he had collected any amount on the
petitioner’s instructions.
(xi) It was further argued that the financial and administrative records
themselves belie the prosecution story. According to the petitioner, the
Directorate records show that, by 27.12.2019, approval for payment had
already been granted and that by 29.12.2019 or 30.12.2019 no bill of the
complainant’s company was pending at the petitioner’s level. Learned
Counsel submitted that on 30.12.2019 itself a further release of
Rs.1,00,08,081/- was made to various suppliers including the
complainant’s company, and therefore the very basis of the allegation
that Rs. 1 lakh was demanded against pending bills of Rs. 50 lakhs was
factually unsustainable. It was also contended that any delay in
processing was attributable not to any unlawful design on the
petitioner’s part but to routine procedural issues such as scrutiny at
different levels, GPS tagging, compliance with financial rules, software
issues with NIC, verification at bank level and problems in uploading
photographs. The petitioner thus argued that pendency of certain bills
for some period could not give rise to a legal inference of corruption.
(xii) Reliance was also placed on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,2 to
contend that where the uncontroverted allegations and the material
collected do not disclose commission of any offence, or where the
criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and
2
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
maliciously instituted to wreak vengeance, the High Court would be
justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceeding.
Further, citing P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P.,3 it was
argued that mere allegation of demand, unaccompanied by proof of
acceptance or recovery from the accused, cannot sustain prosecution
under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(xiii) On these premises, learned counsel submitted that continuance of the
proceeding against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process
of court, would cause grave prejudice, and would result in failure of
justice, and therefore the order taking cognizance as well as the
consequential criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed in exercise of
the inherent powers of this Court.
III. SUBMISSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party presented the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) It is submitted that the prayer for quashing is wholly misconceived and
not sustainable either in law or on facts, inasmuch as the materials
collected during investigation clearly disclose a prima facie case against
the petitioner for offences under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 as amended, read with Section 120B IPC.
(ii) It was contended that the FIR, the detection report, the charge sheet,
and the statements of the complainant and the overhearing witness
recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. together make out the
3
(2015) 10 SCC 152Page 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42essential ingredients of the offences alleged. According to the Opposite
Party, the complainant, being the authorised representative of SRM
Plastochem Pvt. Ltd., had specifically alleged that the petitioner, while
functioning as Director of Horticulture, demanded illegal gratification
at the rate of 2 per cent of the company’s bill amount and instructed him
to contact Sri Santosh Kumar Pattanayak, whose mobile number was
furnished for that purpose. It was further submitted that the
complainant thereafter contacted Sri Santosh Kumar Pattanayak, who
demanded Rs.1,00,000/- as directed by the petitioner through Sri Pitabas
Pradhan, and that the demand conversation had been secretly recorded
in a digital voice recorder, on the basis of which the FIR came to be
registered.
(iii) It was next submitted that after due observance of the pre-trap
formalities, a trap was laid and the tainted bribe amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
was accepted through the co-accused on behalf of the petitioner. The
Opposite Party stressed that Sri Santosh Kumar Pattanayak was
apprehended red-handed in presence of witnesses while receiving the
tainted money, and that the detection report records the demand,
acceptance and recovery.
(iv) According to the Opposite Party, the witness statements recorded
during investigation supported the prosecution version in its entirety,
and the investigation further yielded corroborative materials in the
shape of the call detail records, recorded demand conversation,
WhatsApp message, and the chemical examination report of the State
Forensic Science Laboratory, all of which, according to the prosecution,
Page 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
clearly establish demand and constructive acceptance of bribe money by
the petitioner through the co-accused persons.
(v) It is further submitted that the prosecution case is not confined to direct
physical receipt by the petitioner and that the statutory framework itself
covers obtaining or accepting undue advantage through another
person. In that context, reliance was placed on Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act to contend that the offence is attracted
even where undue advantage is obtained, accepted, or attempted to be
obtained for oneself or for another person, and that it is immaterial
whether such acceptance is direct or through a third party. It was
specifically argued that Explanation 1 and Explanation 2(ii) to Section 7
make it clear that demand itself constitutes an offence and that
acceptance through an intermediary is also legally recognised. On that
basis, the Opposite Party contended that the petitioner cannot seek
quashing merely because the tainted money was not recovered from his
own person, when the prosecution materials disclose that the amount
was allegedly received on his behalf through Sri Santosh Kumar
Pattanayak with the involvement of Sri Pitabas Pradhan.
(vi) It was also submitted that after completion of investigation and upon
obtaining sanction for prosecution from the competent authorities,
charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner and the co-accused
persons. The Opposite Party emphasized that at the stage of cognizance
or quashing, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie
case is disclosed from the materials collected during investigation and
not to undertake a meticulous examination of the probable defence of
Page 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
the accused. According to the Opposite Party, the learned trial court
rightly considered the materials placed before it and passed the
impugned order dated 16.01.2023, and no illegality, perversity or
infirmity is made out warranting interference in exercise of inherent
jurisdiction. On these premises, it was urged that the criminal
proceeding should be permitted to continue and the petition for
quashing be dismissed.
IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence
on record.
7. Before adverting to the rival contentions on merits, it is apposite to first
examine the scope and ambit of the inherent jurisdiction of the High
Court under Sec 528 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.).
8. The power of the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS,
corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is an inherent power
preserved to ensure that the criminal process remains fair, lawful and
subservient to the ends of justice. It is not merely a procedural residuary
power, but a substantive safeguard against misuse of criminal
proceedings. The provision enables the High Court to intervene in
appropriate cases to give effect to the law, prevent abuse of the process
of any Court, and ensure that prosecution is not permitted to continue
where its basic legal foundation is absent.
9. The jurisdiction is corrective and protective in character. At this stage,
the Court does not conduct a trial, weigh disputed evidence, or return
findings on guilt or innocence. However, it is certainly empowered to
Page 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42examine whether the allegations and the materials collected disclose the
essential ingredients of the offences alleged. Where the record shows
that continuation of the proceeding would serve no legitimate legal
purpose, or would operate as an abuse of the coercive machinery of
criminal law, the High Court may exercise its inherent power to secure
justice.
10. The leading authority on the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for
quashing criminal proceedings is State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
(supra). In the said decision, the Supreme Court crystallised illustrative
categories where the High Court may interfere under Section 482
Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution to prevent abuse of process
and secure the ends of justice. Though the categories are not exhaustive,
they continue to serve as the governing guide for testing whether the
allegations, even if accepted at face value, disclose a legally sustainable
prosecution.
“8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given
by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised
either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to
lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guided myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised:
(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report
or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused;
Page 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an investi- gation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
‘complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institu- tion and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge.”
11. While the scope of interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court is undoubtedly narrow, but it is equally well settled that where
the material placed by the accused is of such unimpeachable character
that it completely undermines the factual foundation of the prosecution,
Page 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
the Court would be justified in exercising its power to prevent abuse of
process and to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court has, in
Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.,4 laid down
a structured test to determine when a prayer for quashing at the
instance of an accused merits acceptance. The relevant principles are
extracted below:
“20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the
veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by
invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C.:-
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is
sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of
sterling and impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused,
would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled
against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and
overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e.,
the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to
dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as
false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the
accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant;
and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted
by the prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result
in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the
ends of justice?
If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial
conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such
criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides
4
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947
Page 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time,
which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as
well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is
clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the
accused.”
12. In the same stead, the duty of the court in cases where an accused seeks
quashing of an FIR or proceedings on the ground that such proceedings
are manifestly frivolous, or vexatious, or instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance was delineated by the Supreme Court
in Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P.5 The relevant excerpt is produced
hereinbelow:
“34. At this stage, we would like to observe something
important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the
ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty
to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say
so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the
accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal
vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint
is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The
complainant would ensure that the averments made in the
FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will
not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments
made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute5
2023 SCC OnLine SC 951Page 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or
vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into
many other attending circumstances emerging from the record
of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with
due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines.
The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482
of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not
restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to
take into account the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials
collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the
case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period
of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the
registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby
attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or
personal grudge as alleged.”
(Emphasis supplied)
13. Therefore, the power under Section 528 BNSS, like Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
cannot be treated as unavailable merely because a criminal proceeding
has been instituted or a charge-sheet has been filed. Unless there is an
express statutory bar, the maintainability of such a petition cannot be
lightly excluded. The real enquiry is whether interference is warranted
on the facts and materials of the case to prevent abuse of process and to
advance the ends of justice.
14. Having thus noticed the legal contours within which the power under
Section 528 of the BNSS is to be exercised, this Court must now proceed
to examine the present case on the touchstone of those principles. The
enquiry at this stage is not into the truth or otherwise of the rival factual
assertions in the manner of a full trial, but whether the materials placed
before the Court disclose a case fit for continuation of criminal process,
Page 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
or whether the proceeding, in the facts and circumstances presented,
warrants judicial interdiction in order to prevent abuse of process and
secure the ends of justice. It is in this perspective that the rival
submissions now fall for consideration.
15. Now, it would neither be prudent nor appropriate for this Court to
embark upon a detailed examination of the disputed facts or to test the
veracity of the rival versions placed by the parties. The power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS is discretionary in nature, and
such discretion must be exercised with due regard to the stage of the
proceeding and the settled limits of inherent jurisdiction. Questions
relating to credibility of witnesses, the sequence of events, and
truthfulness of the allegations are ordinarily matters for trial. Therefore,
this Court would refrain from undertaking a fact-finding exercise and
shall confine itself to the legal contentions raised, including whether the
materials disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and
whether any procedural or jurisdictional infirmity warrants
interference.
16. Now, the core submission of the petitioner is that the statutory
precondition of a valid prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act“) was compromised because the
sanctioning authority was allegedly kept unaware of crucial
exculpatory material i.e. the 24.12.2019 recording, and hence could not
have applied an independent, informed mind. Where sanction is a
jurisdictional gateway to cognizance, this pleaded suppression is urged
to amount to “failure of justice”.
Page 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
17. For the ready reference, the relevant part of sub-section (1), (3) and (4)
of Section 19 are reproduced herein below:
“19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution. —
(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable
under sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been
committed by a public servant, except with the previous
sanction save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and
Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1 of 2014)–
(a) in the case of a person who is employed, or as the case
may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged
offence employed in connection with the affairs of the
Union and is not removable from his office save by or
with the sanction of the Central Government, of that
Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed, or as the case
may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged
offence employed in connection with the affairs of a State
and is not removable from his office save by or with the
sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority
competent to remove him from his office.
(2) ———-
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), —
(a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge
shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal,
confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of,
or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction
required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of
that court, a failure of justice has in fact been
occasioned thereby;
(b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on
the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the
sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfiedPage 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a
failure of justice;
(c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on
any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers
of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed
in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.
(4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence
of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has
occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the court shall
have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should
have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings.
Explanation– For the purposes of this section,–
(a) error includes competency of the authority to grant
sanction;
(b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference
to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the
instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a
specified person or any requirement of a similar nature.”
(Emphasis supplied)
18. The question of sanction assumes particular significance in prosecutions
under the PC Act, for it goes to the very competence of the Court to take
cognizance against a public servant. Since sanction is a statutory
precondition and not a mere procedural formality, its validity may be
examined whenever the issue arises. The Supreme Court has clarified
the legal effect of an invalid sanction in the following terms in
Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka:6
“22. The legal position regarding the importance of sanction
under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is thus
6
(2015) 14 SCC 186
Page 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
much too clear to admit equivocation. The statute forbids
taking of cognizance by the court against a public
servant except with the previous sanction of an
authority competent to grant such sanction in terms of
clauses (a), (b) and (c) to Section 19(1). The question
regarding validity of such sanction can be raised at any
stage of the proceedings. The competence of the court
trying the accused so much depends upon the existence
of a valid sanction. In case the sanction is found to be
invalid the court can discharge the accused relegating
the parties to a stage where the competent authority
may grant a fresh sanction for the prosecution in
accordance with law. If the trial court proceeds, despite
the invalidity attached to the sanction order, the same
shall be deemed to be non-est in the eyes of law and
shall not forbid a second trial for the same offences,
upon grant of a valid sanction for such prosecution.”
23. Having said that there are two aspects which we must
immediately advert to. The first relates to the effect of sub-
section (3) to Section 19, which starts with a non obstante
clause. Also relevant to the same aspect would be Section 465
CrPC which we have extracted earlier.
23.1. It was argued on behalf of the State with considerable
tenacity worthy of a better cause, that in terms of Section
19(3), any error, omission or irregularity in the order
sanctioning prosecution of an accused was of no consequence
so long as there was no failure of justice resulting from such
error, omission or irregularity. It was contended that in terms
of Explanation to Section 4, “error includes competence of the
authority to grant sanction”. The argument is on the face of it
attractive but does not, in our opinion, stand closer scrutiny.
23.2. A careful reading of sub-section (3) to Section 19 would
show that the same interdicts reversal or alteration of any
Page 23
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
finding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge, on the
ground that the sanction order suffers from an error, omission
or irregularity, unless of course the court before whom such
finding, sentence or order is challenged in appeal or revision is
of the opinion that a failure of justice has occurred by reason of
such error, omission or irregularity. Sub-section (3), in other
words, simply forbids interference with an order passed by the
Special Judge in appeal, confirmation or revisional proceedings
on the ground that the sanction is bad save and except, in
cases where the appellate or revisional court finds that failure
of justice has occurred by such invalidity. What is noteworthy
is that sub- section (3) has no application to proceedings before
the Special Judge, who is free to pass an order discharging the
accused, if he is of the opinion that a valid order sanctioning
prosecution of the accused had not been produced as required
under Section 19(1).
23.3. Sub-section (3), in our opinion, postulates a prohibition
against a higher court reversing an order passed by the Special
Judge on the ground of any defect, omission or irregularity in
the order of sanction. It does not forbid a Special Judge from
passing an order at whatever stage of the proceedings holding
that the prosecution is not maintainable for want of a valid
order sanctioning the same. 23.4. The language employed in
sub-section (3) is, in our opinion, clear and unambiguous.
This is, in our opinion, sufficiently evident even from the
language employed in sub- section (4) according to which the
appellate or the revisional court shall, while examining
whether the error, omission or irregularity in the sanction had
occasioned in any failure of justice, have regard to the fact
whether the objection could and should have been raised at an
early stage. Suffice it to say, that a conjoint reading of sub-
sections 19(3) and (4) leaves no manner of doubt that the said
provisions envisage a challenge to the validity of the order of
sanction or the validity of the proceedings including finding,
sentence or order passed by the Special Judge in appeal or
Page 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
revision before a higher court and not before the Special Judge
trying the accused.
23.5. The rationale underlying the provision obviously is that
if the trial has proceeded to conclusion and resulted in a
finding or sentence, the same should not be lightly interfered
with by the appellate or the revisional court simply because
there was some omission, error or irregularity in the order
sanctioning the prosecution under Section 19(1). Failure of
justice is, what the appellate or revisional court would in such
cases look for. And while examining whether any such failure
had indeed taken place, the Court concerned would also keep
in mind whether the objection touching the error, omission or
irregularity in the sanction could or should have been raised at
an earlier stage of the proceedings meaning thereby whether
the same could and should have been raised at the trial stage
instead of being urged in appeal or revision.”
(Emphasis supplied)
19. The statutory architecture makes prior sanction a gateway to
cognizance for PC Act offences against a public servant, and the bar is
framed in mandatory terms. While Section 19(3)-(4) restrains
appellate/revisional interference absent “failure of justice,” the Supreme
Court has clarified that courts must meaningfully assess whether the
alleged defect in sanction has caused real prejudice and whether the
objection was raised at a stage when it could have been.
20. In C.B.I. v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal,7 the Supreme Court examined this
statutory requirement of “failure of justice”. It is well settled that where
the defect is not merely technical, but has caused real prejudice to the
accused by depriving him of a statutory safeguard available under
7
(2014) 14 SCC 295
Page 25
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
criminal law, the Court must examine whether such omission has
occasioned a failure of justice. The relevant principle is extracted below:
“18. ……The failure of justice would be relatable to error,
omission or irregularity in the grant of sanction. However, a
mere error, omission or irregularity in sanction is not
considered to be fatal unless it has resulted in the failure of
justice or has been occasioned thereby.
19. The court must examine whether the issue raised
regarding failure of justice is actually a failure of justice in the
true sense or whether it is only a camouflage argument. The
expression “failure of justice” is an extremely pliable or facile
an expression which can be made to fit into any case. The
court must endeavour to find out the truth. There would be
“failure of justice” not only by unjust conviction but also by
acquittal of the guilty as a result of unjust or negligent failure
to produce requisite evidence. Of course, the rights of the
accused have to be kept in mind and safeguarded but they
should not be overemphasised to the extent of forgetting that
the victims also have certain rights. It has to be shown that the
accused has suffered some disability or detriment in the
protections available to him under the Indian criminal
jurisprudence. “Prejudice” is incapable of being interpreted in
its generic sense and applied to criminal jurisprudence. The
plea of prejudice has to be in relation to investigation or trial
and not matters falling beyond their scope. Once the accused is
able to show that there has been serious prejudice caused to
him with respect to either of these aspects, and that the same
has defeated the rights available to him under legal
jurisprudence, the accused can seek relief from the court.”
21. The meaning behind the text of the phrase “failure of justice” must also
be understood in the context of the object behind the larger public
policy on sanction for prosecution. The inter-relationship or the nexus
Page 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
between the act complained of and the discharge of official duties and
the test to be applied has been explained in the decision of the Supreme
Court in State of Bihar v. Rajmangal Ram,8 where this Court held that:
“4. The object behind the requirement of grant of sanction to
prosecute a public servant need not detain the court save and
except to reiterate that the provisions in this regard either
under the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 are designed as a check on frivolous,
mischievous and unscrupulous attempts to prosecute an
honest public servant for acts arising out of due discharge of
duty and also to enable him to efficiently perform the wide
range of duties cast on him by virtue of his office. The test,
therefore, always is whether the act complained of has a
reasonable connection with the discharge of official duties by
the government or the public servant. If such connection exists
and the discharge or exercise of the governmental function is,
prima facie, founded on the bonafide judgment of the public
servant, the requirement of sanction will be insisted upon so as
to act as a filter to keep at bay any motivated, ill-founded and
frivolous prosecution against the public servant. However,
realising that the dividing line between an act in the
discharge of official duty and an act that is not, may, at
times, get blurred thereby enabling certain unjustified
claims to be raised also on behalf of the public servant
so as to derive undue advantage of the requirement of
sanction, specific provisions have been incorporated in
Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well
as in Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
which, inter alia, make it clear that any error, omission
or irregularity in the grant of sanction will not affect
any finding, sentence or order passed by a competent
court unless in the opinion of the court a failure of
justice has been occasioned. This is how the balance is
sought to be struck.”
8
2014 (11) SCC 388
Page 27
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
(Emphasis supplied)
22. Following the above dictum, the issue of sanction in the present case
must first be examined from the standpoint of whether the non-
placement of the entire relevant material before the competent authority
has occasioned, or is likely to occasion, a failure of justice. That aspect
shall be considered separately in the succeeding section.
23. A closely allied principle recognised in PC law jurisprudence is that the
prosecution must place before the sanctioning authority the whole of
the relevant record, including material that may support the accused
and may legitimately persuade the authority to decline sanction. This is
not because the sanctioning authority is to undertake a judicial
determination of guilt or innocence, but because the order of sanction
must reflect an informed and independent exercise of discretion, and
not a mechanical endorsement of the prosecuting agency’s view.
24. In Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra), the Supreme Court observed that
sanction for prosecution is not a mere procedural formality but a
substantive safeguard in favour of a public servant. Since sanction
removes the legal bar against prosecution, the law requires that the
competent authority must consider the entire relevant record with due
application of mind before granting it. It is in this backdrop that the
principles governing a valid sanction may now be noticed:
“8. In view of the above, the legal propositions can be
summarised as under:
Page 28
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
(a) The prosecution must send the entire relevant record
to the sanctioning authority including the FIR,
disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery
memos, draft charge sheet and all other relevant
material. The record so sent should also contain the
material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in
favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the
competent authority may refuse sanction.
(b) The authority itself has to do complete and conscious
scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution
independently applying its mind and taking into consideration
all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging
its duty to give or withhold the sanction.
(c) The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly
keeping in mind the public interest and the protection
available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.
(d) The order of sanction should make it evident that the
authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and
had applied its mind to all the relevant material.
(e) In every individual case, the prosecution has to
establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that
the entire relevant facts had been placed before the
sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its
mind on the same and that the sanction had been
granted in accordance with law.”
(Emphasis supplied)
25. Thus, it is pertinent that the entire evidence and all relevant materials
collected during investigation were placed before the competent
authority and the prosecution must satisfy the Court that that the
Page 29
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
authority applied its mind to the same before granting sanction.
Sanction is not a mere formality, for it lifts the statutory bar against
prosecution of a public servant. It is a solemn safeguard meant to
protect honest officials from frivolous or vexatious prosecution, though
not to shield the guilty. Therefore, the sanctioning authority must have
full knowledge of the material facts, including evidence bearing on both
sides, before deciding whether sanction ought to be granted.
26. Proceeding on the petitioner’s own case, the challenge is that the
recording dated 24.12.2019, relied upon as exculpatory material
reflecting refusal and absence of demand, was withheld from the
sanctioning authority. The objection, thus, is not to a mere formal
irregularity in the sanction order, but to the non-placement of material
which may have had a direct bearing on the decision to grant sanction.
If such withholding is established, the petitioner submits, the
requirement of conscious application of mind would stand vitiated,
thereby rendering the very foundation for taking cognizance
vulnerable; such a scenario is doctrinally aligned with the “entire record
including defence-tilting material” requirement stated in the Ashok Kumar
Aggarwal (supra).
27. In Dinesh Kumar v. Airport Authority of India,9 the Supreme Court also
observed as following:
“10. In our view, invalidity of sanction where sanction order
exists, can be raised on diverse grounds like non-availability
of material before the sanctioning authority or bias of the
sanctioning authority or the order of sanction having been9
(2012) 1 SCC 53Page 30
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42passed by an authority not authorised or competent to grant
such sanction. The above grounds are only illustrative and not
exhaustive. All such grounds of invalidity or illegality of
sanction would fall in the same category like the ground of
invalidity of sanction on account of non- application of mind –
a category carved out by this Court in Parkash Singh Badal
[(2007) 1 SCC 1 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 193] , the challenge to
which can always be raised in the course of trial.”
28. It is also material that the opposite party has not specifically met this
contention by showing that the said material was, in fact, placed before
the sanctioning authority, or that even if omitted, it was of no
consequence to the decision to grant sanction. In the absence of such a
response, the petitioner’s objection cannot be treated as a mere technical
plea. The challenge goes to the completeness of the record placed before
the competent authority and, consequently, to the validity of the
satisfaction recorded while granting sanction.
29. Thus, the requirement of “failure of justice” operates in favour of the
petitioner on two counts. First, the challenge is not to any mere formal
defect in the sanction order, but to the grant of sanction on a materially
incomplete record, which, if accepted, would defeat the statutory
safeguard intended under Section 19 of the PC Act. Secondly, Section
19(4) requires the Court to consider the stage at which the objection is
raised. In the present case, the petitioner has raised the objection at the
threshold while seeking quashing of the order of cognizance, which is
the stage recognised in Nanjappa (supra) as the appropriate and
desirable stage for examining the validity of sanction.
Page 31
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
30. Independently, the petitioner pleads that the cognizance order is a
mechanical acceptance of the police report without adequate disclosure
of judicial application of mind. While a detailed order is not invariably
mandated at cognizance, the Supreme Court has consistently required
“sufficient indication” of application of mind, because subjecting a
person to criminal process is not a matter of routine.
31. In this context, this Court is not required to conclusively pronounce
upon the truth or evidentiary value of the alleged recording dated
24.12.2019. That would be a matter of proof. However, the question
presently is different. The issue is whether a material which the
petitioner specifically describes as exculpatory, and which allegedly
bears directly on the question of demand and refusal, was required to
be placed before the sanctioning authority before sanction was granted.
32. The answer must be in the affirmative. Sanction under Section 19 of the
PC Act is not intended to be an empty endorsement of the prosecution’s
request. It is a statutory filter. The competent authority must be enabled
to examine the entire evidence collected during investigation, including
material which may support the prosecution and material which may
tilt the balance in favour of the accused. If the sanctioning authority is
shown only one side of the record, its satisfaction cannot be treated as
informed or meaningful.
33. It was incumbent upon the Court taking cognizance to satisfy itself, at
least in substance, that the statutory bar under Section 19 of the PC Act
had been validly lifted before proceeding against the petitioner, a public
servant. Though elaborate reasons are unnecessary at the stage of
Page 32
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
cognizance, the order must still reflect application of mind both to the
prima facie materials constituting the alleged offences and to the legality
of the sanction on which cognizance is founded. In the present case, the
petitioner has specifically pleaded that material of alleged exculpatory
value was withheld from the sanctioning authority. In such
circumstances, the learned Court below ought to have examined
whether the sanction had been granted upon consideration of the
complete relevant record. The omission, therefore, bears directly on the
validity of the sanction and, in consequence, on the legality of the
cognizance taken thereon.
34. Therefore, without entering into the factual correctness of the
petitioner’s defence, this Court finds that the issue relating to sanction
discloses a serious procedural infirmity. Cognizance against a public
servant under the PC Act is not a matter of mere form, but is
conditioned upon the existence of a valid sanction granted upon due
consideration by the competent authority. If essential material was in
fact not placed before that authority, the defect cannot be dismissed as a
mere technical lapse. It strikes at the fairness of the decision-making
process underlying the sanction itself and, consequently, at the legal
foundation on which cognizance has been taken.
35. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the order of cognizance
was passed as far back as on 16.01.2023. Despite passage of considerable
time thereafter, charges have not been framed and the trial has not
effectively commenced. The petitioner, therefore, continues to remain
Page 33
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
under the cloud of a prosecution without the matter progressing to the
stage where the allegations may be tested in accordance with law.
36. Before adverting further, this Court considers it appropriate to observe
that the issue of delay, though arising in the factual setting of the
present case, is by no means confined to it. The matter at hand presents
an occasion to take note of a larger and increasingly visible concern in
vigilance prosecutions, namely, the protracted lapse of time at
successive stages of the proceeding, beginning from investigation and
continuing through submission of charge sheet, cognizance, and even
framing of charge. Since such delay has a direct bearing not only on the
rights of the accused but also on the credibility and efficacy of the
criminal justice process itself, this Court deems it necessary to briefly
examine the problem in a broader perspective.
37. 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. The delay is often not confined to one isolated stage.
In many such matters, the investigation itself consumes years; the filing
of charge sheet and other consequential steps consume further time;
and even after cognizance is taken, the matter lingers for years before
charge is framed and the trial meaningfully commences.
38. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to speedy trial
under Article 21 extends not only to the trial proper but also to the
preceding stage of investigation. In Mahendra Lal Das v. State of
Page 34
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
Bihar,10 arising out of a vigilance disproportionate-assets case, the Court
made it clear that even corruption cases must be dealt with swiftly,
promptly and without delay. The relevant excerpt is produced
hereinbelow:
“It is true that interference by the court at the investigation
stage is not called for. However, it is equally true that the
investigating agency cannot be given the latitude of
protracting the conclusion of the investigation without
any limit of time. This Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay
v. R.S. Nayak & Anr, [ 1992] 1 SCC 225 while
interpreting the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution
held that every citizen has a right of speedy trial of the
case pending against him. The speedy trial was
considered also in public interest as it serves the social
interest also. It is in the interest of all concerned that
guilty or innocence of the accused is determined as
quickly as possible in the circumstances. The right to
speedy trial encompasses all the stages, namely, stage of
investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision and re-
trial. While determining the alleged delay, the court has to
decide each case on its facts having regard to all attending
circumstances including nature of offence, number of accused
and witnesses, the work-load of the court concerned, prevailing
local conditions, etc. Every delay may not be taken as causing
prejudice to the accused but the alleged delay has to be
considered in the totality of the circumstances and the general
conspectus of the case. Inordinate long delay can be taken as a
presentive proof of prejudice.”
(Emphasis supplied)
39. The Court ordinarily does not interdict an investigation in its early
stages, such restraint cannot be understood as a licence for the
10
2002 (1) SCC 149
Page 35
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
investigating agency to keep the matter pending for an indefinite or
unreasonable period. The constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial
under Article 21 extends to the stage of investigation as well, and any
allegation of delay must be assessed in the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case. At the same time, where the delay is
inordinate, unexplained, and of such magnitude as to cast a shadow on
the fairness of the process itself, prejudice to the accused may
legitimately be presumed. The criminal process cannot be permitted to
become a punishment in itself by reason of endless pendency.
40. In Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra,11 the Supreme Court
reiterated that prolonged and unexplained investigation can itself
amount to violation of Article 21. The court observed as following:
“17. It is, therefore, well settled that the right to speedy trial in
all criminal persecutions is an inalienable right under Article
21 of the Constitution. This right is applicable not only to the
actual proceedings in court but also includes within its sweep
the preceding police investigations as well. The right to speedy
trial extends equally to all criminal persecutions and is not
confined to any particular category of cases. In every case,
where the right to speedy trial is alleged to have been
infringed, the court has to perform the balancing act upon
taking into consideration all the attendant circumstances,
enumerated above, and determine in each case whether the
right to speedy trial has been denied in a given case. Where the
court comes to the conclusion that the right to speedy trial of
an accused has been infringed, the charges or the conviction, as
the case may be, may be quashed unless the court feels that
having regard to the nature of offence and other relevant
circumstances, quashing of proceedings may not be in the11
AIR 2008 SC 3077Page 36
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42interest of justice. In such a situation, it is open to the court to
make an appropriate order as it may deem just and equitable
including fixation of time for conclusion of trial.”
41. More recently, in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar,12
the Supreme Court observed that investigations cannot continue
endlessly, that unexplained delay in filing the culminating charge sheet
must be accounted for, and that the Court taking cognizance must seek
an explanation where there is a large and unjustified gap between the
FIR and the charge sheet. The relevant excerpt is produced hereinbelow:
“19. Coming back to the present case, why the investigation in
this case took more than a decade to be completed is lost on us.
Apparently, it was found that the licenses issued by the
appellant were also issued to a fictitious person even at the
time when the order for further investigation was taken. Out
of the 16 accused persons one person stood charge-sheeted in
terms of the first chargesheet and the remaining, excluding the
appellant and one Abhishek, were charge-sheeted by way of the
second chargesheet. When only the actions of the appellant
were subject matter of investigation by the time permission
was taken as above – 11 years is quite obviously a timeline
afflicted by delay. No reason is forthcoming for this extended
period either in the chargesheet or at the instance of the Court
having taken cognizance of such chargesheet. In other words,
the appellant has had the cloud of a criminal investigation
hanging over him for all these years. The judgments above
referred to supra hold unequivocally that investigation
is covered under the right to speedy trial and it is also
held therein, that violation of this right can strike at the
root of the investigation itself, leading it to be quashed.
At the same time, it must be said that timelines cannot
be set in stone for an investigation to be completed nor12
2025 INSC 1339Page 37
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42can outer limit be prescribed within which necessarily,
an investigation must be drawn to a close. This is
evidenced by the fact that further investigation or rather
permission therefore, can be granted even after
commencement of trial. [See: Rampal Gautam v The
State] Where though, Article 21 would be impacted
would be a situation where, like in the present matter,
no reason justifiable in nature, can be understood from
record for the investigation having taken a large amount
of time. The accused cannot be made to suffer endlessly
with this threat of continuing investigation and
eventual trial proceedings bearing over their everyday
existence.”
(Emphasis supplied)
42. Delay, by itself, may not in every case furnish a ground for quashing.
However, 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. A criminal
prosecution, particularly one involving a public servant and allegations
under the PC Act, carries grave civil, professional and reputational
consequences. The process itself cannot be permitted to become
punitive when the foundational statutory safeguard is under serious
doubt.
43. A vigilance prosecution, by its very nature, carries a burden far heavier
than the ordinary weight of a criminal case. Long before guilt is
adjudicated, it places the accused under a public shadow of moral
suspicion. Reputation is bruised, professional standing is shaken,
relationships suffer, and the individual is made to live for years under
Page 38
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
the constant humiliation of unresolved accusation. In that sense, a
vigilance trial can itself become a punishment, not by sentence of law,
but by the slow violence of pendency. When such a prosecution is then
allowed to drift endlessly through delayed investigation, belated charge
sheet, and stalled trial, the injury is not merely procedural; it becomes
deeply human. Delay eats into pride, self-respect, and human dignity. It
wears down the mind, unsettles the family, and, for many, strikes even
at their sense of personhood and self-worth.
44. The law does not permit punishment before conviction, yet inordinate
delay produces precisely that result by converting accusation into an
enduring ordeal. A justice system that allows such proceedings to
remain suspended for years risks turning process into penalty and
stigma into substitute for proof. That is why delay in vigilance matters
is not a routine lapse of administration. It is a grave assault on fairness,
dignity, and the constitutional promise that no person shall be subjected
to a procedure that is oppressive in its operation and endless in its
duration. When time itself is allowed to become an instrument of
suffering, the trial ceases to be a search for truth and begins to resemble
punishment without judgment.
45. In the present case, the delay is not being considered in isolation. It
reinforces the petitioner’s principal objection that the prosecution has
proceeded on a questionable sanction and a cognizance order which
does not reflect due engagement with the statutory preconditions.
Where the trial has not even begun after such lapse of time, allowing the
proceeding to continue despite the unresolved defect in sanction would
Page 39
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
only prolong a prosecution whose very initiation, qua the petitioner, is
procedurally vulnerable.
V. CONCLUSION:
46. This Court finds that the objection raised by the petitioner is neither
premature nor technical, but goes to the foundational legality of the
prosecution itself. The issue is not one of mere irregularity, but of a
possible failure of the statutory safeguard embedded in Section 19 of the
PC Act. Where sanction is alleged to have been granted on an
incomplete record, and the Court taking cognizance has not
meaningfully examined whether the statutory bar stood validly lifted,
the resultant cognizance cannot be treated as immune from scrutiny.
47. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 03 of
2023 is set aside so far as it relates to the present petitioner. The
consequential proceeding against the petitioner shall also stand
quashed.
48. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the
competent authority from considering the question of sanction afresh,
in accordance with law, upon being placed in possession of the
complete relevant materials.
49. In light of the foregoing, this CRLMC is allowed and disposed of in
terms of the aforesaid observations.
Page 40
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
50. Consequently, the CRLMC No.3441 of 2025 is also disposed of in terms
of the order passed in CRLMC No.1589 of 2025.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 17th April, 2026/-
Page 41