Orissa high court quashes 15-year-old vigilance case against OCCF president, cites inordinate delay

CUTTACK: The Orissa high court has quashed a 15-year-old vigilance case against Golak Prasad Mohapatra, president of Orissa Consumers’ Cooperative Federation Ltd (OCCF), holding that the prolonged delay in investigation and trial warranted exercise of its inherent powers “to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.”

A single judge bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, on February 25, set aside the FIR registered on June 2, 2010, and the consequential criminal proceedings pending before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, insofar as the petitioner (Mohapatra) is concerned. Senior Advocate Subir Palit argued on Mohapatra’s behalf.

The case stemmed from allegations of irregularities in distribution of subsidised linkage coal to Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) between 2008 and 2010. Vigilance officials had alleged diversion of coal to the open market, appointment of a marketing agent through fake quotations and supply to non-existent units, causing an alleged loss of around Rs 25 lakh to the state exchequer. Offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC were invoked.

While examining the plea for quashing, the high court took note of the timeline of the case and the slow pace of proceedings. The order recorded:

“So far as the present matter is concerned, the alleged occurrence pertains to the period 2008-2010 and the F.I.R was initially lodged in the year 2010. The sanction to initiate prosecution against the Petitioner was obtained from the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Bhubaneswar in 2011. The charge sheet was submitted in 2013, three years after registration of the F.I.R, and the charge was framed 9 years later in 2022, which is also when the first witness on behalf of the prosecution was examined. As of August, 2025 only 13 out of the 38 charge-sheeted witnesses have been examined. This implies that the case has been lingering on for one and half decades at this point and is no close to being concluded.”

Justice Mohapatra observed, “This Court is constrained to hold that the delay in the trial cannot be attributed to the Petitioner and that the same is, in fact, largely attributable to the prosecution.”

Holding that the matter was fit for invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, the court quashed the proceedings against Mohapatra.