Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P.ROUTRAY
Prasan Kumar Patra – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accusations against appellants regarding financial offences. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. claims of legal misclassification of the company. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. definitions of 'deposit' and 'financial establishment' under opid act. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. standard of proof required at the stage of charge framing. (Para 8) |
| 5. legal precedents concerning discharge applications. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. no merit found in appellant's contentions; crla dismissed. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
By way of this appeal, appellants have assailed the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, Designated Court, OPID Act, Cuttack in CT No. 14 of 2018 in rejecting the petitioner filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and refusing the prayer of the petitioners to discharge them from commission of offences under Sections 420 /406/467/ 468/471//120-B of IPC and Section 6 of the Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 2011 (hereinafter in short referred to as the “OPID Act”).
3. The accusations are to the effect that the appellant No.1, namely, Prasan Kumar Patra is having 60% and his wife, appellant No.2, namely, Rashmita Patra has 40% share in the said Company. They allured
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
