Kamadev Biswal vs. State Of Odisha(Vig.)

Page 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No.4672 of 2024

(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973).

Kamadev Biswal …. Petitioner(s) -versus-

State of Odisha (Vig.) …. Opposite Party (s)

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ananta Narayan Pattanayak, Adv.

For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Niranjan Moharana, S.C. for Vig. Deptt.

CORAM:

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

DATE OF HEARING:-20.03.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.04.2026

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

alleged commission of offences under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

part bill amounting to Rs.527688/- was thereafter credited to the account of the original contractor Sashi Bhusan Kar. (iv) The complainant further alleged that after completing more than 70 percent of the Gherry work, he approached the present petitioner on 06 December 2021 for measurement and release of the next part bill whereupon the petitioner allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs.10000/- for passing the earlier bill and preparing the subsequent bill and made it clear that in the absence of such payment, the bills would not be processed in favour of the complainant. (v) In this backdrop an FIR was registered against the present petitioner as Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.42 dated 06 December 2021 for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act, 2018 pursuant to which the Vigilance team arrested the petitioner on 08 December 2021 and he was later released on bail vide order dated 28 December 2021 passed by the learned Special Judge Vigilance Bhubaneswar. (vi) Upon completion of the said investigation, the Investigating Officer being the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar Division, submitted charge sheet No.03 dated 07 February 2023 against the present petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by the Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act 2018. Page 4

(vii) Thereafter the learned Special Judge Vigilance Bhubaneswar, took cognizance of the offence on 15 July 2023 in connection with Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.42 of 2021, corresponding to T.R. Case No.18 of 2023 for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by the Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act, 2018. (viii) In the wake of the said allegations, a departmental proceeding was also initiated by the Disciplinary Authority being the Principal Secretary to Government Department of Water Resources Government of Odisha and the petitioner was placed under suspension on 07 December 2021. He was, however, subsequently reinstated in service vide office order dated 20 September 2022 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government Department of Water Resources. (ix) In the departmental proceedings, the Additional Chief Secretary to Government Department of Water Resources framed a memorandum of articles of charges against the petitioner alleging gross misconduct, dereliction of duty and failure to maintain absolute integrity and honesty vide office order dated 05 May 2022. (x) Aggrieved by the continuation of the criminal prosecution and the attendant departmental action the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present CRLMC invoking its inherent juri iction seeking quashing of the entire proceedings on the Page 5

assertion that the same is not founded on bona fide considerations but is vitiated by vengeance, malice and an abuse of the process of law and that allowing such prosecution to continue would result in grave miscarriage of justice.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

authority under the said document to execute the work awarded to the original contractor and consequently lacked locus to claim payment or allege any demand of illegal gratification. It is further submitted that, had the Vigilance authorities examined the document with due diligence, they would have found the grievance to be misconceived. Moreover, any such subleasing arrangement is contrary to the terms of the original contract and could not have formed the basis for setting the criminal law in motion. Accordingly, the initiation of the present proceeding is vitiated in law and it amounts to an abuse of the process of Court. (ii) The Petitioner further submits that the original Engineer contractor namely Sashi Bhusan Kar has awarded the work vide e- procurement Notice No.6 (KHD)- 2020 -21 and Bid Identification No.e-KHD-06-01/2020-21 for the work “restoration to Saline Gherry from Adal to Dochhina”. In this regard the said contractor executed the agreement with the Executive Engineer, Khurda Irrigation Division Khurda, on 19 February 2021 which was prior to the petitioner’s assuming charge of the post on 01 March 2021 thereby indicating that the contractual arrangement had been concluded before the petitioner came to be associated with the said office. In the Clause-7(i) of the Agreement clearly stated that “the Engineer contractor shall have to execute the work if awarded to him under his direct supervision and he will not be allowed to execute such work through his power of attorney holder.” Further, Clause-18 states that “the contract Page 7

shall not be assigned or sub-let without written approval of the Engineer – in-Charge”. (iii) The petitioner further submits that no valid or lawful sub-letting arrangement exists between the original contractor and the present complainant nor has any prior approval been obtained from the competent authority for such sub-letting as mandatorily required under the contract. It is, therefore, contended that the allegation of sub-letting is wholly contrary to the terms and spirit of the agreement and devoid of legal sanctity. It is, further, brought on record that upon enquiry the Superintending Engineer-II, Internal Vigilance Bhubaneswar has categorically found that no sub-letting agreement was ever executed nor was any sub-letting of the work approved in favour of the complainant by the Superintending Engineer Khurda Irrigation Division. This position stands affirmed in the report of the Chief Engineer Internal Vigilance Bhubaneswar. (iv) It is also undisputed that the complainant does not hold any power of attorney from the original contractor in respect of the said work and as such lacks any lawful authority or privity to assert execution or claim any entitlement arising therefrom. The Petitioner further contends that the original engineer contractor namely Sashi Bhusan Kar having signed the tender agreement executed the work and received amount covered under the 1st RA Bill for the work “Restoration of Saline gherry from Adal to Dochhian (Damage and flood control)” as per ANNEXURE–2 of the Petition. He did not make any Page 8

allegation of demand of bribe against the present Petitioner for passing of 1st RA Bill. The engineer contractor Sashi Bhusan Kar was examined in disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner and in that proceeding also he has stated to have no knowledge about the alleged demand of bribe by the petitioner to the so-called complainant. (v) The petitioner further contends that it is a well settled investigative norm in trap cases that the Trap Laying Officer must satisfy himself as to the veracity of the alleged demand of illegal gratification prior to initiating trap proceeding, and that a prudent and unbiased officer is expected to undertake at least a minimal verification rather than acting solely on the assertions of the complainant. It is further submitted that the FIR itself discloses inherent improbabilities, inasmuch as the complainant alleges that he approached the petitioner on 27 November 2021 for passing of a part bill, which date falls on a Fourth Saturday, a notified government holiday under the Odisha Government Calendar, 2021, thereby rendering the allegation prima facie doubtful. It is contended that the Vigilance authorities ought to have verified this elementary fact to test the credibility of the allegation. Having failed to do so, the very foundation of the preliminary enquiry stands shaky and the subsequent trap proceedings are rendered legally unsustainable. (vi) The petitioner further submits that at the time of the alleged trap on 07 December 2021, he specifically apprised the Trap Laying Page 9

Officer that the complainant had not visited his office on 27 November 2021 or on 06 December 2021. It was further informed that CCTV cameras installed at the entrance corridor of his office were operational and requested that the footage be seized and verified to ascertain whether the complainant had entered the office premises on the said dates or not. It is also contended that had such footage been secured on 07 December 2021, it would have conclusively falsified the allegation of prior demand of bribe as projected in the FIR. However, despite being made aware of the existence and relevance of the CCTV system, the Trap Laying Officer and the Investigating Officer failed to seize or examine the footage. The omission of this fact, according to the petitioner, is not inadvertent but deliberate and intended to suppress material evidence that would have discredited the complainant’s version thereby rendering the trap proceedings tainted and vitiated in law. (vii) The petitioner further submits that the CCTV footage constituted the most cogent and reliable piece of evidence to establish as to whether the complainant had, in fact, entered the office premises of the petitioner on 27 November 2021 and 06 December 2021, so as to substantiate the allegation of prior demand of illegal gratification. It is also contended that it was incumbent upon the investigating agency to secure and produce such a cogent piece of evidence. However, despite being fully aware of its existence and relevance, the Trap Laying Officer and the Investigating Officer failed to seize Page 10

the said footage. According to the petitioner, this omission was neither accidental nor bona fide, but deliberate and motivated, with a view to sustain a false and vexatious prosecution. It is further submitted that the petitioner brought these serious lapses to the notice of the Principal Secretary to Government of Odisha, G.A. and P.G. Department, by way of a detailed representation dated 08 August 2022, specifically highlighting the illegalities in the investigation, including the non-seizure of CCTV footage for the relevant dates. The aforesaid conduct, it is contended, clearly demonstrates that the investigation was neither fair nor conducted in accordance with the spirit of the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. (viii) The petitioner further submits that a perusal of the sanction order bearing No.2384 Gen dated 30 January 2023 reveals patent non- application of mind and legal infirmity inasmuch as the petitioner is alleged to have committed criminal misconduct by demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.10000/- and to have thereby attracted Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is contended that such conclusion is ex facie contrary to the statutory scheme as the offence of criminal misconduct is specifically governed by Section 13 of the Act whereas Section 7 pertains to the offence of a public servant being bribed. The conflation of these distinct provisions demonstrates a clear confusion on the part of the sanctioning authority as to the nature of the alleged offence which according to Page 11

the petitioner stems from non-consideration or non-production of the relevant materials collected during investigation. It is further contended that the sanction order does not disclose any reasoning nor does it satisfy the statutory requirement of application of mind to the facts and evidence on record. It proceeds mechanically to accord permission for prosecution without addressing the essential ingredients of the alleged offence in law. On these premises, the petitioner contends that the sanction order stands vitiated and cannot sustain the prosecution in the eye of law. (ix) The petitioner also submits that the findings emerging from the departmental enquiry unequivocally demolish the substratum of the prosecution case inasmuch as the Superintending Engineer Irrigation Division Khurda upon due enquiry examined material witnesses namely Prabhat Chandra Pattnaik, Assistant Engineer Pradip Kumar Behera, Superintending Engineer and Subrat Kumar Das, former Superintending Engineer who have consistently deposed that subsequent to submission of the first R A Bill on 12 May 2021, no further bill was prepared in favour of the contractor since no work was executed at site and no bill was pending at the sub-division level for payment. It is further borne out from record that as on 07 December 2021, no bill whatsoever was pending before the present petitioner for consideration or approval. The petitioner, therefore, contends that in the absence of any pending bill or executable work the, foundational premise of demand of illegal Page 12

gratification for preparation or clearance of such bill stands rendered wholly illusory and untenable in law thereby striking at the very root of the prosecution case and rendering the allegation inherently improbable and devoid of any factual or legal basis. (x) It is further submitted that the original contractor namely Sashi Bhusan Kar, in his statement, has categorically asserted that no sub- letting agreement was ever executed in favour of any person and in order to verify the same the Superintending Engineer Khurda Irrigation Division by letter dated 14 February 2022 called upon the said contractor to produce any power of attorney or document evidencing sub-letting if existing. However, in response thereto the original contractor by his letter dated 21 August 2024 addressed to the Superintending Engineer reiterating the fact that he had not sublet the assigned work in favour of any person. Therefore, he contends that the consistent stand of the original contractor coupled with the absence of any documentary proof of sub-letting, it clearly negates the claim of the complainant and reinforces the position that no lawful or factual basis exists to attribute any role or liability to the petitioner on that premise. (xi) It is further submitted that pursuant to the representation of the petitioner an enquiry was initiated on the directions of the Engineer in Chief-cum-Special Secretary, Internal Vigilance and the same was conducted at the level of the Superintending Engineer-II, Internal Vigilance Bhubaneswar and the Chief Engineer Internal Vigilance Page 13

Bhubaneswar. It is stated that the enquiry was undertaken by a duly constituted committee comprising the Superintending Engineer Khurda Irrigation Division, the Divisional Auditor the Estimator the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khurda Irrigation Sub- Division the Superintending Engineer II, Internal Vigilance and the Executive Engineer I, Internal Vigilance thereby ensuring a comprehensive and multi-tier examination of the matter in issue. After conducting the enquiry meticulously, they found out and held as follows: a) There is no subletting of work approved by the Superintending Engineer, Khurda Irrigation Division. b) Subrajit Samantaray (Complainant) is not to be related for the said work. c) Work is incomplete and no work is going on since 15.12.2021. d) On the date of occurrence about 12.13% work was done but the claim of the complainant for execution of 70% work is baseless. In view of the aforesaid report of the committee, the Chief Engineer, Internal Vigilance, Bhubaneswar recorded a categorical finding that the present petitioner had no manner of connection with the execution of the work in question and that the claim regarding completion of 70 percent of the work was not borne out from the official records thereby rendering the allegation factually untenable.

Page 14

(xii) In so far as the departmental proceeding is concerned, it is submitted that an enquiry was duly conducted wherein the Additional Chief Engineer was appointed as the Enquiring Officer and upon a comprehensive examination of the allegations and the articles of charge the Enquiring Officer namely the Additional Chief Engineer, Quality Assurance Circle Central Bhubaneswar submitted his report dated 28 March 2023 to the Additional Secretary to Government Department of Water Resources on 31 March 2023 wherein it has been held as follows: a) there is no evidence to substantiate the allegation made by the complainant that 70% of work has been done at site. b) after the R/A Bill, there is no work done at site, for which there is question of preparing Bill by the present petitioner does not arise at all. c) the present petitioner has not committed any gross misconduct and dereliction in discharging regular duty and opined that “Headache without Head”. d) there is no evidence adduced in the proceeding with regard to demand of bribe made by the present petitioner. e) the petitioner has maintained absolute integrity, decorum of conduct and same has not been proved against him. Page 15

f) there is no evidence to prove the charges leveled against the present petitioner and he cannot be held guilty. g) finally recommended the present petitioner is exonerated from all the charges leveled against him. In view of the aforesaid facts circumstances and the cumulative effect of the materials placed on record including the findings of the departmental enquiry and vigilance reports, the petitioner submits that the prosecution lacks a legally sustainable foundation and is vitiated by inherent contradictions, absence of material evidence and non- application of mind. It is further contended that the essential ingredients of the alleged offence remain unsubstantiated and the continuation of the proceeding would not only be futile but would amount to an abuse of the process of law resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. It is therefore submitted that this is a fit case where the inherent juri iction of this Court ought to be exercised to secure the ends of justice by quashing the entire proceeding against the petitioner. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC, cumulatively lend due corroboration to the prosecution case and clearly disclose the commission of an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act, 2018 against the petitioner. (ii) The opposite party further submits that the Detection Report, which sets out in detail of the circumstances relating to demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted money, bears the signature of the petitioner as well as other witnesses, thereby evidencing due acknowledgment of its contents. It is contended that such endorsement lends substantial credence to the prosecution version. It is further urged that the petitioner has taken inconsistent and contradictory stands with regard to the possession of the tainted currency notes, and such discrepancies raise questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings of this nature and are required to be tested on the anvil of evidence during trial. (iii) The opposite party further contends that the statements recorded in the course of departmental proceedings are not admissible as evidence in a criminal trial and cannot be relied upon for the purpose of adjudication in the present proceeding. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the departmental authority has not yet rendered any final decision in the disciplinary proceeding and in any event, even a finding of exoneration in a departmental enquiry does not ipso facto warrants quashing or termination of the criminal Page 17

prosecution inasmuch as the two proceedings operate in distinct fields with different standards of proof and scope of consideration. (iv) The opposite party further contends that the plea regarding alleged non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority and the validity of sanction and those grounds are essentially matters to be examined during trial and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. It is further submitted that issues relating to corroboration or contradiction in the statements of witnesses as well as appreciation of evidence fall squarely within the domain of trial and do not warrant interference in a proceeding under Section 482 of the CrPC wherein the Court is not expected to undertake a detailed evaluation of evidence. (v) The opposite party Vigilance further contends that the grounds as submitted by the petitioner are essentially in the nature of defence pleas which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC. It is submitted that a substantial portion of the documents and materials relied upon by the petitioner do not form part of the prosecution record and therefore cannot be considered at this preliminary stage. It is further urged that the veracity, admissibility and evidentiary value of such materials as well as the defence sought to be projected can only be examined during the course of trial upon proper proof and cross examination of witnesses. Any evaluation thereof at this stage would amount to a premature appreciation of evidence which is impermissible in law Page 18

accordingly it is contended that no case for quashment is made out and the present CRLMC is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 Page 19

conversation between the complainant and the petitioner, or to equip the complainant with any recording device during the trap, assumes significance in the absence of any independent corroborative material. Such lapses cannot be brushed aside as inconsequential irregularities.

result in undue harassment and miscarriage of justice. The benefit of such foundational infirmity must, therefore, go to the petitioner at this stage itself.

supervision. The materials on record, including the vigilance enquiry as well as the departmental proceedings, unequivocally indicate that no such subletting was ever approved and that the complainant had no legal privity with the contract.

measurement of work for the purpose of passing the bill, is demonstrably misconceived. As per the established administrative framework, the responsibility for preparation of the bill lies with the Junior Engineer, while the authority to approve and clear the same vests with the Superintending Engineer. The role of the present petitioner is confined merely to verification and checking of the assigned work, without any determinative authority in the matter of bill approval.

the very edifice of the prosecution stands rendered fragile and unsustainable. Continuation of such a proceeding, in the absence of this indispensable requirement, would be legally impermissible and would tantamount to a clear abuse of the process of Court, warranting interference at this stage itself. The Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Neeraj Dutta Vrs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)2 framed a principles/ guideline on the very issue:

2(2023)4 SCC 731 : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029 Page 24

(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe- giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptanceasperSection7oftheAct.In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is anoffenceunderSections13(1)(d)(i)and (ii) of the Act. (iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe- giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d),(i) and (ii), respectively of the Act. Therefore, underSection7oftheAct, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe- giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.

be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands

“9. Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption Page 27

under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent.” (emphasis added) The presumption under Section 20 can be invoked only when the two basic facts required to be proved under Section 7, are proved. The said two basic facts are ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of gratification. The presumption under Section 20 is that unless the contrary is proved, the acceptance of gratification shall be presumed to be for a motive or reward, as contemplated by Section 7. It means that once the basic facts of the demand of illegal gratification and acceptance thereof are proved, unless the contrary are proved, the Court will have to presume that the gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated by Section 7. However, this presumption is rebuttable. Even on the basis of the preponderance of probability, the accused can rebut the presumption. “18. The allegation of demand of gratification and acceptance made by a public servant has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision of the Constitution Bench does not dilute this elementary requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Constitution Bench was dealing with the issue of the modes by which the demand can be proved. The Constitution Bench has laid down that the proof need not be only by direct oral or documentary evidence, but it can be by way of other evidence including circumstantial evidence. When reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for gratification, the prosecution must establish each and every circumstance from which the prosecution wants the Court to draw a conclusion of guilt. The facts so Criminal Appeal No.1669 of 2009 established must be consistent with only one hypothesis that there was a demand made for gratification by the accused. Therefore, in this case, we will have to examine whether there is any direct evidence of demand. If we come to a conclusion that there is no direct evidence of demand, this Court will have to consider Page 28

whether there is any circumstantial evidence to prove the demand.

of obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt means covered by clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) cannot be proved.”

3 (2016) 1 SCC 713 4 (2023)16 Supreme Court cases 141: 2023 SCC Online SC 424 52024 LiveLaw (SC) 468 Page 29

of repetition, we may state that the manner in which M. Ashok S/o Abbaiah was associated as a panch witness in the trap proceedings, creates a grave doubt that the entire case was orchestrated against the appellant(AO1) at the instance of the said M. Ashok”

juri iction, this Court would not be powerless to intervene. The grant of sanction, being a solemn and sacrosanct act intended to afford protection against frivolous prosecution, cannot be reduced to a mere formality or mechanical exercise. In the present case, the sanction appears to have been accorded in a routine and perfunctory manner, without assigning reasons or indicating due consideration of relevant facts. Such a sanction, lacking in reasoning and reflective scrutiny, stands vitiated in the eye of law and cannot sustain the prosecution against the petitioner. In this context, the Supreme Court in State of Karantaka Vs. Ameer Jan10 has succinctly observed that: “For the aforementioned purpose, indisputably, application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority is imperative. The order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. We have noticed hereinbefore that the sanctioning authority had purported to pass the order of sanction solely on the basis of the report made by the Inspector General of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha. Even the said report has not been brought on record. Thus, whether in the said report, either in the body thereof or by annexing therewith the relevant documents, IG Police Karnataka Lokayuktha had placed on record the materials collected on investigation of the matter which would prima facie establish existence of evidence in regard to the commission of the offence by the public servant concerned is not evident. Ordinarily, before passing an order of sanction, the entire records containing the materials collected against the accused should be placed before the sanctioning authority. In the event, the order of sanction does not indicate application of mind as the 102007(4) CCR 188 (S.C): AIR 2008 SC.108- (2007) 11 SCC 273 Page 31

materials placed before the said authority before the order of sanction was passed, the same may be produced before the court to show that such materials had in fact been produced.”

department enquiry proceedings held against him in which the applicant has been exonerated of charge no.

“38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows: (i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously; (ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; (iii) Adjudication proceeding and criminals proceeding are independent in nature to each other; (iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution; (v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement

13(2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 581 Page 34

Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceeding is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and (vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.”

required for continuation of criminal proceedings. The case thus unmistakably falls within the well-settled parameters governing the exercise of inherent juri iction under Section 482 CrPC. Accordingly, the present matter squarely attracts multiple recognized categories warranting quashment, and any reluctance on the part of this Court to intervene would not only perpetuate an abuse of the process of law but would also occasion a grave miscarriage of justice. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors,14 has observed that:

"

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a wider challenge is available including a challenge on the ground of abuse of process of law. In such proceedings, the accused can rely upon documents which are not the part of the charge-sheet.”

V. CONCLUSION:

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)

Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 17th April, 2026/