The Designated Court under the OPID Act is not required to identify affected persons or quantify the money for equitable distribution, as per the provisions of the OPID Act.

JUDGMENT

S. Pujahari, J. - In both these appeals, challenge having been made to the common judgment, i.e., the judgment dated 06.05.2017 passed by the learned Designated Court under the OPID Act, Berhampur in I.A. No.2 of 2016, corresponding to EOW P.S. Case No.18 dated 22.07.2015, both these appeals have been heard together and the impugned order to follow will dispose of both of them.

2. Buguda P.S. Case No.151 of 2015 registered under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 6 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 (for short "the OPID Act") on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by one Ramakrushna Pani, was taken over by the Crime Branch for the purpose of investigation and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.809 of 2018 have been arraigned as accused persons therein. It is alleged that accused-company, namely, M/s. Katloon Management & Financial Services Pvt. Limited incorporated as a Private Company under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and the Accused-Society, namely, M/s. Katloon Credit Cooperative Limited through their Directors / Managing Director or Promoter, as the case may be, during the period from November, 2010 to March, 2013 collected huge amount of money from the public unauthorizedly with assurance of refunding the same with interest, and instead of honoring the commitment made by them to the depositors / Investors, closed their offices in August, 2013. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed against them. As per the investigation, various properties were purchased by the Company and its sister concerned through their Directors at different places with the money collected by them from the depositors in course of running illegal money circulating scheme. It further appears from the record that in terms of Section 3 of the OPID Act, 2011 the State Government passed order of provisional attachment of the movable and immovable properties of the appellants in CRLA No.809 of 2018 and thereafter the Addl. District Magistrate-cum-Competent Authority under the OPID Act moved an application under Section 4(3) of the OPID Act registered as I.A. No.2 of 2016 before the Designated Court under the OPID Act, Berhampur seeking to make the aforesaid ad-interim order of attachment absolute and for a direction to sell the attached properties by public auction and realize the sale proceeds. The present appellant nos.5 and 6 (opposite party nos.5 and 6 in the Interim Application) though contested the said Interim Application, did not choose to adduce any evidence during the hearing. The learned Designated Court basing upon the oral evidence of two witnesses and documentary evidence produced by the applicant-competent authority, passed the impugned judgment directing the competent authority to sell the attached properties by public auction and realize the sale proceed for the purpose of equitable distribution of the same amongst the depositors.

3. The accused persons, who were arraigned as opposite parties in I.A. No.2 of 2016 before the Court below, have preferred Criminal Appeal No.809 of 2018 to set-aside the impugned judgment dated 06.05.2017, whereas Criminal Appeal No.810 of 2018 has been filed by the purchasers of different parcels of land from M/s.Katloon Management & Financial Services Pvt. Limited, seeking to quash the impugned judgment to the extent the same affected the property purchased by them under Ext.2 and more fully described in the CRLA.

4. I have heard the respective learned counsels appearing for the appellants in both the appeals as well as Shri Bibekananda Bhuyan, learned Special Counsel engaged on behalf of the respondent-State.

5. The appellants in CRLA No.809 of 2018 question the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment on the grounds, inter-alia, that the proceeding in question having been initiated on the complaint / F.I.R. of a lone individual said to be a