MAHESH CHANDRA PATTNAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Criminal Revision, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 9.3.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in T.R. No. 40 of 2007 taking cognizance of alleged commission by the petitioner of offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) In view of the limited nature of grievance raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in course of hearing, the back ground facts of the case may be narrated in brief as follows:

(3.) It was strenuously contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the case was registered in the year 1988 and after lapse of 19 years, in the year 2007, the petitioner was supplied with an incomplete set of police papers. Inspite of the prayer made by the petitioner, copies of vital documents relied upon by the prosecution have not been supplied so far. Even after a lapse of more than two decades trial has not commenced. There is no likelihood of conclusion of the trial within a reasonable period. Therefore, the petitioner has been deprived of his right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar reported in, 2009 AIR(SCW) 1418 it was strenuously contended that as the delay in investigation and prosecution is not at all attributable to the petitioner, the impugned order as well as criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with 401 as well as inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.