AKHAYA KUMAR ROUT vs STATE OF ODISHA(VIG.)

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1496 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure
528
Code, 1973/Section of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
Akhaya Kumar Rout &Anr. …. Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha (Vigilance) Opposite Party (s)
….



:
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Uma Charan Mishra, Adv.

For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Niranjan Moharana,
Addl. Standing Counsel (Vigilance)




CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

DATE OF HEARING: -30.03.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-22.05.2026


Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioners have filed the present CRLMC under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for
quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in V.G.R. Case No.47 of 2015
pending before the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar,
including the order dated 11.12.2017 whereby further investigation was
directed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
I. F ACTUAL M ATRIX OF THE C ASE :
2.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Page 1

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01

(i) While Petitioner No.1 was working as Tahasildar, Baranga and
Petitioner No.2 was functioning as a private Amin, a Vigilance P.S.
Case No.40 dated 03.09.2015 was registered under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegation of demand of
illegal gratification of Rs.4,00,000/-, out of which Rs.50,000/- was to be
paid as first instalment.

(ii) A trap was accordingly laid by the Vigilance authorities. It is alleged
that on the instruction of Petitioner No.1, the bribe amount of
Rs.50,000/- was handed over to Petitioner No.2. However, during the
trap, the tainted currency notes could not be recovered.
(iii) Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted Final Report No.40 dated 24.12.2016 stating that due to
non-recovery of tainted money and lack of corroboration from the
overhearing witness, no prima facie case was made out.

(iv) The learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar, however, vide
order dated 11.12.2017, declined to accept the Final Report and
directed further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

(v) It is not in dispute that thereafter, despite repeated directions of the
learned trial Court on multiple occasions, no final form has been
submitted for a considerable length of time.
UBMISSIONS N EHALF F HE ETITIONERS
II. S O B O T P :
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) Demand, acceptance and recovery are the three essential elements of
the offence for conviction of an accused U/s-13(i)(d) read with Section
13(2) of the PC. Act, 1988, as laid down by the Supreme Court in
Page 2

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
1
State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere v. C.B. Nagaraj ” .
Therefore, the Opposite Party had rightly filed the closure report
before the learned trial Court vide Annexure-2. However, the learned
trial Court, instead of accepting Annexure-2, directed further
investigation vide Annexure-3, which is per se illegal, inasmuch as no
recovery of the tainted notes was made at the spot on the date of the
trap, thereby causing the alleged offence to fail. Neither the Vigilance
nor the complainant had ever prayed for further investigation. Under
such circumstances, the learned Trial Court, in the absence of corpus
delicti , directing further investigation on 11.12.2017 and thereafter on
30 occasions asking the Vigilance to submit the final form, amounts
to a miscarriage of justice.

(ii) The Opposite Party has failed to recover the tainted notes since
03.09.2015 till date; hence, the order dated 11.12.2017 (Annexure-3)
has become redundant and obsolete. Therefore, the continuance of
VGR Case No.47 of 2015 in the Court of the learned Special Judge,
Vigilance, Bhubaneswar, amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

(iii) The Opposite Party, in its counter, has taken a stand that the demand
by Petitioner No.1 and constructive acceptance by Petitioner No.2
were established during the trap proceedings; however, the counter
is silent as to where the trap money went and why the Opposite
Party did not comply with the direction of the learned trial Court
dated 11.12.2017 for a prolonged period of 8 years. The law is well
settled by this Court in its recent Judgment dated 27.02.2026 in Dr.
Rabindra Kumar Jena &Prof. (Dr). Truptirekha Swain v.State of

1

2025 INSC 736
Page 3

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
2
Odisha (Vigilance) wherein at Para-26, it has been held that a delay
of more than nine years in investigation since the registration of F.I.R.
is sufficient ground to quash criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this
Court has quashed thevigilance case therein.
(iv) The well-accepted maxim “interest reipublicaeut sit finis litium” means
“it is in the interest of the State that there be an end to litigation.”
Therefore, the continuance of the present criminal proceeding vide
VGR No.47 of 2015, pending before the Court of the learned Special
Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar since 03.09.2015 for more than 11
years without any fruitful result, amounts to an abuse of the process
of law. Hence, this Court may kindly quash the same.
III. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE O PPOSITE P ARTY :
4.
The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) On the basis of the allegations made by the complainant against the
petitioners, an FIR was registered. After following the pre-trap
procedures, a preparation report was prepared and signed by the
complainant and other witnesses, affirming the contents therein.

(ii) Thereafter, a trap was laid in the presence of witnesses. During the
trap, it transpired that at about 3:30 p.m., the complainant and the
overhearing witness, named Chiranjib Pattnaik, went to the rest room
of Petitioner No.1. Upon seeing the complainant, Petitioner No.1
asked whether he had brought the demanded bribe money, to which
the complainant replied in the affirmative. Petitioner No.1 then
instructed the complainant to hand over the bribe money to another

2

CRLMC No.3829/2025 and 3682 of 2024 decided on 13.03.2026
Page 4

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
person present there, i.e., Petitioner No.2, who accepted Rs.50,000/-
from the complainant as per the instructions of Petitioner No.1.

(iii) Upon confrontation, Petitioner No.2 admitted having accepted the
bribe money at the instance of Petitioner No.1. The hand-wash of
Petitioner No. 2 tested positive.

(iv) Petitioner No.2 had been engaged by Petitioner No.1 as a private
Amin. Soon after accepting the bribe money and before the vigilance
team reached the spot, Petitioner No.2 handed over the tainted
money to another person, due to which the tainted notes could not be
recovered despite search.
(v) In the aforesaid circumstances, a Final Report vide F.F. No.40 dated
24.12.2016 was submitted before the learned trial Court due to non-
recovery of the tainted currency notes and the failure of the
overhearing witness to support the prosecution.

(vi) By order dated 11.12.2017, the learned Special Judge did not accept
the Final Report on the ground that the Investigating Officer had
submitted it solely due to non-recovery of the tainted notes, while
ignoring the evidence of demand and acceptance and the nature of
the allegations. Accordingly, the Court directed further investigation
under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C.

(vii) Pursuant to the said order, further investigation was conducted.
During this process, additional witnesses were examined. Taking into
account the proof of demand and constructive acceptance of the bribe
by Petitioner No.1 through Petitioner No.2 (as stated by the
complainant), along with fresh evidence that emerged on 22.01.2026
regarding the manner in which the tainted currency notes
Page 5

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
disappeared (based on the statement of Biswajit Sahoo, driver of the
Bolero bearing No. OD-33A3393 used by Petitioner No.1), and the
positive hand-wash result of Petitioner No.2, the culpability of the
petitioners is clearly established. The investigation has now been
completed and the Investigating Officer is taking steps to submit the
final form in accordance with law.

(viii) Petitioner No.1 is also involved in another case relating to possession
of disproportionate assets, vide Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case
No.55/2015, wherein a charge sheet has been submitted (C.S. No.39
dated 30.12.2022) and the case is pending trial. This further indicates
the corrupt practices of Petitioner No.1.

(ix) It is well settled that in trap cases, the essential elements of demand
and acceptance of illegal gratification can be proved through the
complainant and/or other witnesses, even if the overhearing witness
turns hostile, as in the present case.
(x) In view of the facts and circumstances and the materials available on
record, viz., the FIR, preparation report, detection report, statements
of the complainant, trap-laying officer and other witnesses collected
during further investigation, the proof of demand and constructive
acceptance of the bribe by Petitioner No.1 through Petitioner No.2 is
clearly established. The manner in which the tainted currency notes
disappeared (as per the statement of Biswajit Sahoo) and the positive
hand-wash test of Petitioner No.2 further substantiate the case
against the Petitioners.

(xi) Hence, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 11.12.2017
passed by the learned trial Court. Furthermore, the continuance of
Page 6

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
the criminal proceedings is lawful. Accordingly, the present CRLMC
deserves to be dismissed.
OURT S EASONING AND NALYSIS
IV. C ’ R A :
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, and upon a
thorough perusal of the pleadings, documents on record, the impugned
order dated 11.12.2017, and the rival submissions advanced, the following
substantial questions of law arise for this Court's determination:
(i) Whether the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar, was legally
justified in directing further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C."), notwithstanding the submission
of Final Report No. 40 dated 24.12.2016 ?
(ii) Whether, in a trap proceeding instituted under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, the mere non-recovery of tainted currency notes, ipso
facto, vitiates the foundational substratum of the prosecution case?
(iii) Whether the inordinate and protracted pendency of investigation
pursuant to an order for further investigation constitutes a patent abuse of
the process of the court, thereby warranting the exercise of inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 of the
BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita, 2023 ("BNSS") ?
6. At the threshold, this Court remains cognizant of the settled jurisprudential
principles governing the invocation of inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. This extraordinary jurisdiction, though plenary in nature, need to
be exercised with due circumspection, restraint, and abundant caution. Its
application is strictly confined to the statutorily prescribed grounds that
are to give effect to any order under the Code, to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is a
cardinal principle that the Court, in the exercise of this jurisdiction that it
does not ordinarily venture into the appreciation of evidentiary materials
Page 7

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
or adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact, matters that are
quintessentially within the province of a full-fledged trial.

7. The principal substratum of the petitioners' contention is that the failure to
recover the tainted currency notes during the trap operation eviscerates the
very corpus delicti of the offence. Consequently, they argue, the
perpetuation of criminal proceedings amounts to a gross abuse of the legal
process. While this submission carries a superficial allure, it fails to
withstand rigorous juridical scrutiny.

8. It is now a trite proposition of law that in offences punishable under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the gravamen of the offence resides in
the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The recovery of tainted
money undoubtedly serves as a potent piece of corroborative evidence;
however, it is not the sole sine qua non for sustaining a prosecution. In
appropriate cases, the twin facets of demand and acceptance may be
legitimately established through a constellation of surrounding
circumstances, the oral testimony of credible witnesses, and other
incriminating materials unearthed during the investigative process.
9.
In the sub judice matter, the materials on record prima facie indicate that
the complainant levied a specific allegation regarding the demand of illegal
gratification by Petitioner No. 1. It is further alleged that during the trap
proceeding, the complainant handed over the tainted amount to Petitioner
No. 2, acting pursuant to the instructions of Petitioner No. 1. The
prosecution asserts that Petitioner No. 2 subsequently acknowledged
receipt of the amount on behalf of Petitioner No. 1, a fact purportedly
corroborated by a positive hand-wash test. The prosecution narrative
Page 8

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
further suggests the tainted notes were allegedly passed on to a third party
before the trap team could effectuate their physical recovery.

10. This Court cannot remain oblivious to the fact that the learned Special
Judge, while declining to accept the Final Report, assigned cogent and
reasoned grounds. The order underscored that the Investigating Officer
had myopically concentrated on the non-recovery of the tainted money,
while conspicuously overlooking other incriminating circumstances
pertaining to demand and acceptance. The power of a Magistrate or a
Special Judge to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is
no longer res integra. This power is imbued with the purpose of advancing
the cause of justice and ensuring an investigation that is comprehensive,
fair, and effective. Ergo, the mere absence of a formal prayer for further
investigation from either the Vigilance Department or the complainant
does not per se divest the Court of its inherent jurisdiction to issue such a
direction if the factual matrix so warrants.
11. The petitioners' ancillary contention that the impugned order dated
11.12.2017 has been rendered otiose by the efflux of time is equally
unpersuasive. While inordinate delay in investigation is inherently
undesirable and may potentially cause prejudice, it cannot, ipso facto, lead
to the quashing of proceedings unless the Court concludes, with a high
degree of certainty, that their continuation would be manifestly oppressive,
mala fide, or utterly devoid of a legal foundation.
12. Admittedly, the present litigation has been marred by considerable
procedural delay subsequent to the order directing further investigation.
The record reveals a pattern of repeated adjournments and prolonged
pendency without the submission of a final report. Such institutional
Page 9

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
torpor undoubtedly merits serious judicial concern. The expansive
guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution enshrines the right to a fair,
just, and expeditious investigation and trial. Investigating agencies are
duty-bound to act with alacrity and a sense of responsibility, particularly,
in corruption cases involving public servants, where societal confidence in
institutional probity hangs in the balance.
13.
However, the subsequent developments brought to this Court's notice by
the Vigilance Department cannot be summarily discounted at this
interlocutory stage. It has been specifically averred that during the course
of the further investigation, additional evidence surfaced on 22.01.2026
concerning the disappearance of the tainted currency notes, based on the
statement of one BiswajitSahoo, the driver of the vehicle allegedly utilized
by Petitioner No. 1. The Vigilance authorities have further affirmed that the
further investigation now stands formally concluded, and administrative
steps are underway for the submission of the final form.
14. At this juncture, it is not for this Court, in the exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction, to embark upon a meticulous evaluation of the probative
value, credibility, or ultimate admissibility of such materials. Whether the
newly discovered evidence will inspire judicial confidence, whether the
doctrine of constructive acceptance is legally sustainable on the facts;
whether the prosecution will discharge its burden of proving the
foundational facts beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the absence of
physical recovery materially cripples the prosecution case are all
contentious issues that squarely fall within the exclusive domain of the trial
court.
Page 10

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
15.
The petitioners' reliance on the precedent in Dr. Rabindra Kumar Jena &
Prof. (Dr.) Truptirekha Swain v. State of Odisha (Vigilance) (supra) is
distinguishable on facts. In that case, this Court found that despite an
extraordinary lapse of time, there was a complete absence of meaningful
investigative progress, thereby rendering the continuation of proceedings
oppressive. In stark contrast, in the instant case, the Vigilance Department
has categorically asserted the completion of further investigation,
accompanied by the discovery of additional incriminating materials. Thus,
the factual substratum herein rests on a fundamentally different footing.
16. Equally untenable is the petitioners' endeavor to transform these
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. into a veritable mini-trial. Defense
pleas regarding the absence of corpus delicti, the purported unreliability of
witnesses, the non-support of an overhearing witness, and the alleged
inherent improbability of the prosecution's version are all matters that
necessitate a thorough evidentiary appreciation through cross-examination
and the trial process. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court cannot be
converted into an appellate forum for weighing the sufficiency or
insufficiency of evidence.
17.
Concomitantly, this Court cannot remain impervious to the profound delay
that has plagued this matter since its inception in 2015. Investigative
lassitude erodes public trust in the criminal justice delivery system. Such
delay not only defeats the rights of the accused to a speedy trial but also
undermines the profound societal interest in the effective prosecution of
corruption offences. The State is therefore enjoined to ensure that as the
further investigation has now been admittedly completed, the
Page 11

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
consequential final form is submitted before the learned court below within
a strictly time-bound framework.

18. This Court is guided by the enduring constitutional principle that
corruption by public servants strikes at the very heart of democratic
governance and institutional integrity. Allegations pertaining to the
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification cannot be lightly interdicted
at the threshold, especially when the materials collected disclose prima
facie circumstances that warrant a thorough judicial examination during
trial.
19. Upon an integrated consideration of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 11.12.2017, directing
further investigation, does not suffer from any patent illegality,
jurisdictional error, or perversity that would warrant interference under
Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS. The materials collected during the
investigation, when taken at their face value and accepted as true, cannot,
at this preliminary stage, be characterized as so absurd, inherently
improbable, or prepotent of a falsehood so as to justify the quashing of the
entire proceeding.
20.
Nevertheless, in balancing the competing and equally compelling
imperatives of a fair, complete investigation and the petitioners'
indefeasible right to expeditious justice, this Court deems it appropriate to
issue a specific direction. The Investigating Agency is hereby directed to
submit the final form, if not already submitted, before the learned Special
Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar, within a period of eight weeks from the
date of communication of this order. Upon such submission, the learned
Page 12

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 27-May-2026 15:45:01
court below shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law, ensuring
utmost expedition.

21. In fine, the Criminal Misc. Case, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
22. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.



(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
nd
Dated the 22 May, 2026/

Page 13