Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
Nitu Gupta & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Odisha (Vigilance) - Respondent
CRLMC No. 454 of 2021 and CRLMC No. 440 of 2021
Decided On : 08-10-2021
None
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Nitu Gupta, Kanta Devi Gupta, and Champak Gupta, were directors of M/s Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. (i.e., Nitu Gupta and Kanta Devi Gupta, Petitioners in CRLMC No. 454 of 2021) or M/s Snehapushp Marketing Private Ltd. (i.e., Champak Gupta, Petitioner in CRLMC No. 440 of 2021) which had raised, purchased, or received the above extracted minerals with the alleged clear knowledge that the minerals had been illegally raised/stolen. Nitu Gupta is the wife of principal accused Deepak Gupta and became a Director of M/s Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. on 30.10.2007, once he ceased to be a Director of the same. Kanta Devi Gupta is the mother of said Deepak Gupta and became a Director of M/s Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. since its inception. Champak Gupta is the brother of said Deepak Gupta and was a Director and equal shareholder of M/s Snehapusph Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no prima facie case made out against Nitu Gupta and Kanta Devi Gupta, and quashed the proceedings against them. However, the court found that there were specific allegations against Champak Gupta, and dismissed his petition.
Issues: Whether there was a prima facie case made out against the petitioners for the offenses they were charged with.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complaint did not indicate the existence of any prearranged connivance whereby Nitu Gupta and Kanta Devi Gupta had any knowledge or premeditation in the matter. The court also held that there were specific allegations against Champak Gupta, and dismissed his petition.
Final Decision: The court allowed CRLMC No. 454 of 2021 and quashed the proceedings against Nitu Gupta and Kanta Devi Gupta. The court dismissed CRLMC No. 440 of 2021 filed by Champak Gupta.
JUDGMENT
S. K. Panigrahi, J. - These petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) have been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings emanating from V.G.R. Case No. 5(c) of 2013 arising out of Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 30 of 2013, for alleged commission of offences u/s 13(2), r/w Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as PCA) and u/s 420, 468, 409, 379, 411 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) which is pending in the Court of learned Special Judge Vigilance, Keonjhar. As the petition involves the same facts, they are being decided by this common judgment and order.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the present matter are as follows:
i. Upon receiving a reference from the Department of Steel and Mines, Govt. of Odisha, State Vigilance officials conducted an enquiry and joint physical verification of the Uliburu Mines area from 01.07.2013 to 04.07.2013, subsequently a First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as FIR) was lodged on 27.07.2013 against the present petitioners and a host of officials of the Mining, Forest and Revenue Departments of the State of Odisha, alleging illegal mining and removal of iron ore from the Uliburu Iron Ore Mines as well as from the surrounding Uliburu Reserve Forest area.
ii. The mining lease hold area leases were held by one B.K. Mohanty and one Jagdish Mishra i.e. the lessees. It was alleged that the state government officials had abused their official position and shown undue favour to the lease holders, their power of attorney holder and others to cause unlawful loss to the state exchequer.
iii. After registration of the FIR, the Vigilance Department took up investigation and a chargesheet was submitted on 31.12.2013. There are 25 accused persons in the chargesheet, wherein Petitioner No. 1 in CRLMC No. 454 of 2021 i.e. Mrs. Nitu Gupta is arrayed as Accused No. 23, Petitioner No. 2 in CRLMC No. 454 of 2021 i.e. Mrs. Kanta Devi Gupta is arrayed as Accused No. 22 and the sole Petitioner in CRLMC No. 440 of 2021 i.e. Mr. Champak Gupta is arrayed as Accused No. 20.
iv. A brief perusal of the chargesheet showcases that one B.K. Mohanty had submitted an application for grant of a mining lease for the Uliburu Iron Mines on 04.08.1978. The said lease was ultimately granted to him over an area of 58.94 Ha. for a period of 20 years from 13.12.1983, and the working of mines was, therefore, valid upto 12.12.2003. The Collector, Keonjhar vide Order No. 459 dated 20.02.1984, granted the surface right over an area of 28.24 Ha. to the said B.K. Mohanty and the possession was thereby delivered.
v. On 18.11.1992, the said B.K. Mohanty filed an application to surrender the mine citing the depletion of saleable grades of ore, however, he seems to have had a change of mind as he filed another application on 14.05.2002 seeking permission to withdraw his previous surrender application.
vi. Thereafter, on 03.12.2003, the said B.K. Mohanty again filed an application for the renewal of his mining lease. After a thorough enquiry and after receipt of recommendations from the Dy. Director of Mines, Joda, District Forest Officer, Keonjhar, Sub-Collector Champua, Collector, Keonjhar, wherein it was broadly recommended that the entire area for which renewal was sought may be granted despite the delay in filing the application for renewal. The application was thereafter forwarded to the Director of Mines, Steel and Mines Department, Odisha on 17.09.2008 for consideration and disposal on merit thereupon.
vii. Meanwhile, pending renewal, the said B.K. Mohanty had executed a registered power of attorney dated 29.12.2003 in favour of one Deepak Gupta, Director of M/s Snehapushp Marketing Private Ltd. as well as the then Director of Deepak Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd. The aforesaid registered power of attorney executed by said B.K. Mohanty gave the aforesaid Deepak Gupta the power to mine, trade
In order to constitute an offence of criminal conspiracy and to attract its rigor, two factors must spring forth from the facts of the case:(i) involvement of more than one person and (ii) an agreeme....
The provisions of Section 22 of the MMDR Act do not operate as a complete and absolute bar for taking action by the police for illegal and dishonestly committing theft of minerals, and the police hav....
The principle of vicarious liability cannot be automatically imputed to directors or partners of a company without specific averments and proof of their involvement in the alleged offences.
Vicarious liability cannot be imposed on a company's directors under IPC unless there is specific statutory provision; direct involvement must be established.
Vicarious liability cannot be imposed on company Directors without specific statutory provisions; mere designation does not imply culpability without evidence of involvement.
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intent is proven at the outset of the agreement, as established in relevant legal precedents.
The judgment established the principle that for criminal liability of an officer of a company, there must be sufficient evidence of their active role in the transaction, coupled with criminal intent,....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, leading to the quash....
The legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of specific allegations and evidence against an individual in criminal cases, especially in cases involving a corporate entity, and the ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
