The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the person to be responsible for the management of the affairs of the Financial Establishment under section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act, and the sufficiency of materials for framing charges under other relevant sections.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. SAHOO, J.

1. The appellant Ramesh Chandra Sahu has filed this criminal appeal under section 13 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 (hereafter ‘O.P.I.D. Act’) challenging the impugned order dated 24.01.2020 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court, OPID Act, Balasore in C.T. No.8(C) of 2016 in rejecting the petition filed by the appellant under section 239 of Cr.P.C. for discharge. The appellant has also challenged the order dated 01.11.2021 of the learned trial Court in framing charges against him for commission of offences under sections 420/468/465/294/506 of the Indian Penal Code, sections 4/5/6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act.

2. On the basis of the complaint petition filed by one Ashesh Kumar Parida before the learned S.D.J.M., Nilgiri, 1.C.C. Case No.124 of 2015 was registered and the said complaint petition was forwarded under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the Inspector in-charge of Berhampur police station and accordingly, Berhampur P.S. Case No.56 of 2015 was registered under sections 420/468/465/294/506 of the Indian Penal Code, sections 4/5/6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act. It is the prosecution case as per the complaint petition that the appellant was the co-villager of the complainant who impersonated himself as the Zonal Director of Nilgiri Zone of Rose Valley Company and showed papers of the Company to the complainant and apprised him about different schemes of the Company and at last the complainant being convinced deposited money with the appellant in two schemes i.e. one at the rate of Rs.840/- (rupees eight hundred forty) per month and another scheme at the rate of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand) per month. In this process, the complainant continued to deposit money for five years and collected receipts and two certificates were issued in favour of the complainant, one amounting to Rs.88,120/- (rupees eighty eight thousand one hundred twenty) and other amounting to Rs.1,05,744/- (rupees one lakh five thousand seven hundred forty four). When the complainant on completion of the period of five years came to the office at Nilgiri, he found the same to be locked and there was no employee present there. The complainant contacted the appellant over telephone, who told him that the office was shifted to his house and asked the complainant to meet him in his house. The complainant met the appellant in his house, who told him that the deposit has already been matured and he would get entire money within a month but thereafter, in spite of repeated approach of the complainant, the appellant did not refund back any money. On suspicion, the complainant approached the main office of Rose Valley at Bhubaneswar and he showed the maturity certificate issued by the appellant in his favour and he came to know that the maturity certificate so also money receipts were forged by the appellant and the same has got no connection with the Rose Valley Company and no documents of the complainant was available in the Rose Valley Company. When the complainant confronted the appellant about his conduct in duping him in issuing fake certificates and receipts and asked him to refund the money immediately, the appellant abused the complainant in filthy language and admitted that he has not deposited any money taken by him from the complainant in the Rose Valley and issued fake certificates and he threatened the complainant with dire consequence. The complainant came to know that the appellant was a school teacher and he used to cheat people in this manner and misappropriated huge public money impersonating himself as the agent of different banks and that he has purchased costly cars and lands.

3. During course of investigation, the witnesses were examined, material documents were collected and the Investigating Office