SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Ori) 184

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. SAHOO, J.
Prasan Kumar Patra - Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha - Respondent
BL APL No. 439 of 2019
Decided On : 06-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :M/s. Prasant Kishore Ray Utsa Pattnaik P.K. Panda, C.K. Panda, Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, Advocate.

The seriousness of economic offences, the liability of financial establishments, and the continuing nature of the offence under section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act.

Headnote:

Bail - O.P.I.D. Act - Indian Penal Code - Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 - 467, 468, 471, 420, 406, 120-B, 6 - The court discussed the applicability of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 and the Indian Penal Code sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 406, 120-B in the context of a case involving fraudulent collection of deposits for providing developed plots and subsequent misappropriation of funds. The court highlighted the definition of 'deposit' under the O.P.I.D. Act, the liability of the financial establishment, and the continuing nature of the offence under section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act. The court also emphasized the seriousness of economic offences and the need to consider the larger interests of the public and State while granting bail.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought bail in connection with a case involving fraudulent collection of deposits for providing developed plots and subsequent misappropriation of funds. The case pertained to offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011. The petitioner, as the Managing Director of a company, was accused of cheating investors and misappropriating over twelve crores of rupees.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner, along with others, had collected deposits in a pre-planned manner under false assurances and subsequently cheated the investors by not providing the promised plots. The court also noted the continuing nature of the offence under section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act and the fabricated nature of the documents issued by the company. Considering the severity of the accusation, the court rejected the bail application.

Issues: The issues involved the applicability of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011, the liability of the financial establishment, the nature of the offence under section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act, and the seriousness of economic offences.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the definition of 'deposit' under the O.P.I.D. Act, the liability of the financial establishment, and the continuing nature of the offence under section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act. The court also highlighted the seriousness of economic offences and the need to consider the larger interests of the public and State while granting bail.

Final Decision: The bail application was rejected by the court.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Sahoo, J.

The petitioner Prasan Kumar Patra has filed this application under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking for bail in connection with E.O.W., Odisha, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.17 of 2018 corresponding to C.T. Case No.14 of 2018 pending on the file of Presiding Officer, Designated Court, O.P.I.D. Act, Cuttack for offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 406 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 (hereafter 'O.P.I.D. Act').

2. On 30.07.2018 one Manoranjan Mishra of Kanan Vihar, Phase-II, P.S.-Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar lodged the first information report before the Superintendent of Police, E.O.W., Odisha, Bhubaneswar alleging therein that during November 2012 after going through the advertisement of M/s. ZInfra Construction Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter 'the company') about availability of plots under Jatani Tahasil near IIT relatively in lower price in the Pragyan Vihar Project, he contacted the petitioner who was the Managing Director of the company at his office located at IRC Village, Nayapalli to purchase a plot measuring an area of 2400 sq.ft. in the project. The petitioner along with his officials showed the project site to the informant and assured him to give absolute right and title of the land after conversion and making boundary wall around the plot with approachable road to the plot. They also told the informant that the total project area has been purchased by them. The cost of the plot was Rs.3,60,000/- and they charged Rs.35,000/- for conversion of the land and Rs.60,000/- for constructing boundary wall around the plot. The informant paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) on 11.08.2012 as booking amount and obtained a receipt from the company. It is the further case of the informant that on 05.11.2012 he paid another Rs. 3,50,000/-(rupees three lakh fifty thousand only) and obtained a receipt whereafter the petitioner registered the land on 06.11.2012 in favour of the informant by way of a registered sale deed. The land corresponds to Mouza-Kansapada, P.S.-Jatani, Khata No.76, Plot No.154, Sub Plot Nos.441 and 442, Area-Ac.0.055 dec. out of Ac.0.730 dec. Thereafter, the informant paid a sum of Rs. 95,000/- (rupees ninety five thousand only) on different dates for conversion and boundary wall of the plot. It is the further case of the informant that though the registration of the plot was made in November 2012 but there was no approach road to the said plot and the petitioner and others of his company falsely told the informant that they have right and title over entire Pragyan Vihar Project. They had knowledge that they were not having right, title over the area, in spite of that they had received the payment from the informant with an intention to deceive him. In spite of registration of the land in favour of the informant, the same is serving no purpose. It is stated that the petitioner and other officers of the company have deceived the informant with an amount of Rs. 4,55,000/- on the basis of false and fabricated documents. It is stated that in spite of repeated approach by the informant to the petitioner and other officials, they have not constructed the boundary wall around the plot as promised even though they received the amount since last six years. It is further stated that the petitioner as Managing Director and others have cheated about five hundred persons and misappropriated an amount of Rs. 20 crores. In some cases, registration of a plot has been done but there is no approach road and in some cases, registration has not been made even though payment has been received and in some cases, a particular plot has been sold to number of persons creating problem in mutation of land. The accused persons after misappropriating the amount absconded by closing their office.

3. On the basis of such first information report, E.O.W.

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top