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

2020 Supreme(Ori) 8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. Sahoo, J.
Shrikant Mohta - Appellant
Versus
Republic Of India - Respondent
Bail Application No. 5450 of 2019
Decided On : 02-01-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Suresh Tripathy, Advocate, Kali Charan Mishra, Advocate
Cases Referred
C.B.I. -Vrs.- V. Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452
K.K. Jerath -Vrs.- Union Territory, Chandigarh, (1998) 4 SCC 80
Nimmagadda Prasad -Vrs.- C.B.I., (2013) 55 OCR 833 (SC)
Ram Chandra Hansdah -Vrs.- Republic of India, (2015) 62 OCR 219
State of Gujarat -Vrs.- Mohan Lal Jitamal Torwal, (1987) AIR(SC) 1321
State of Madhya Pradesh -Vrs.- Kajad, (2001) 21 OCR 507 (SC)
State of Maharashtra -Vrs.- Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, (1989) AIR(SC) 2292
Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy -Vrs.- C.B.I., (2013) 55 OCR 825 (SC)

Headnote:

PRIZE CHITS AND MONEY CIRCULATION SCHEMES (BANNING) ACT, 1978 - SECTIONS 4, 5 AND 6 - INDIAN PENAL CODE - SECTIONS 420, 409 READ WITH SECTION 120-B - BAIL - REJECTION - GROUNDS - KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLE - CATEGORIZATION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a founder director of a film production company, entered into an agreement with a sister concern of Rose Valley, a company engaged in illegal chit fund business, for the telecast of Bengali films on the latter's satellite channel. The petitioner's company received payment for the films, but some of the films were found to be technically not feasible for telecast and were not replaced. The petitioner also purchased paintings from an exhibition organized by a political leader of West Bengal for a declared amount of Rs.15 lakhs, which the prosecution alleged came from the funds received from the sister concern of Rose Valley. The petitioner was arrested and charged with cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal conspiracy.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner for cheating the public by entering into an agreement with a company engaged in illegal chit fund business and receiving payment for films that were not telecast. The court also found that the petitioner had close links with high-level personalities and politicians of West Bengal, which could hamper the investigation. The court rejected the petitioner's bail application, holding that his release would be against the larger interest of the public and the State.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was involved in cheating the public by entering into an agreement with a company engaged in illegal chit fund business and receiving payment for films that were not telecast.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's close links with high-level personalities and politicians of West Bengal could hamper the investigation and that his release would be against the larger interest of the public and the State.

Final Decision: The court rejected the petitioner's bail application.

JUDGMENT

S. K. Sahoo, J. - The petitioner Shrikant Mohta earlier knocked the doors of this Court for bail in an application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in BLAPL No.1983 of 2019 in connection with R.C. Case No. 39/S/2014-Kol dated 05.06.2014 corresponding to SPE Case No. 34 of 2014 pending on the file of Special C.J.M. (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar which was rejected as per order dated 13.05.2019. After submission of charge sheet against the petitioner on 22.05.2019 for commission of offences punishable under sections 420, 409 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (hereafter 1978 Act'), he has again approached this Court for bail after his prayer for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in Bail Application No.854 of 2019 was rejected vide order dated 18.06.2019.

2. The present case was instituted by clubbing three First Information Reports of three different cases i.e. Buguda P.S. Case No.75 of 2013, Jeypore Town P.S. Case No.71 of 2013 and Nuapada P.S. Case No.82 of 2013 in pursuance of the order dated 09.05.2014 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in W.P. (Civil) No.401 of 2013 filed by Shri Subrata Chattoraj and W.P. (Civil) No.413 of 2013 filed by Shri Alok Jena.

    According to the prosecution case, Rose Valley Group of Companies (hereafter for short 'Rose Valley') collected huge amount of money from public enticing them with false promise of paying higher rates of interest although Rose Valley was not having any authorization from the Reserve Bank of India (hereafter for short 'RBI') or the Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereafter for short 'SEBI') for carrying out such activities and therefore, the company cheated the public.

    Investigation revealed that 'Rose Valley Resorts and Plantations Limited, Kolkata' was founded in the year 1997 and in the year 2002, SEBI imposed ban on the teak based investment schemes which the company was carrying out, for which the schemes floated were stopped. The company was renamed as 'Rose Valley Hotel and Entertainment Limited' in the year 1999. Two more companies in the name of 'Rose Valley Real Estates Constructions Limited' and 'Real Estate and Landbank India Ltd.' were founded subsequently in the year 1999 and 2001 which were registered with the Registrar of Companies (hereafter for short 'ROC'). Rose Valley started expanding its spheres and a lot of new companies were formed in between 1997 to 2012. The accused persons, namely Gautam Kundu, Chairman of Rose Valley, Shibamoy Dutta, Managing Director, Ashok Kumar Saha and Ram Lal Goswami, Directors of Rose Valley in furtherance of criminal conspiracy by establishing branches of the companies in different parts of India, collected money from the public through multi-level agent network system. They cheated the investors/depositors by way of camouflaged schemes and false assurance about legal sanctity and false promise of higher rates of interest. The accused persons also cheated the depositors as well as the agents by making false assurance that the accused companies were legally empowered to collect money from the public. They were running ponzi schemes and circulating the money collected from the depositors which was not disclosed to the depositors and agents. The accused persons made false propaganda that Rose Valley is having a big business empire and diversified business. They fraudulently claimed that the money collected from the depositors would be invested in those businesses and with the help of high returns from those companies, they would be able to pay back to the depositors their invested money with interest on maturity. The accused persons deceived the depositors and deliberately induced them to invest their hard-earned money in the accused companies. It further revealed from the scrutiny of the balance sheet of all the companies of Rose Valley that almost all the co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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