Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Ori) 223

ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Sanju Panda, S.K. Panigrahi, JJ.
Pradeep Kumar Sethy - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & another - Opposite Parties
W.P.(CRL.) NO.53 OF 2020
Decided On : 23-12-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Milan Kanungo, (Senior Advocate) along with M/s. C.Mishra & S.R. Mohanty
For the Opposite Party :Mr. Janmejaya Katikia Additional Govt. Advocate, Mr. Sarthak Nayak

Double jeopardy does not apply as multiple convictions for distinct offences were proven, each relating to separate transactions despite similarities in nature, safeguarding constitutional rights provided under Article 20(2).

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 20(2) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 300 - Double jeopardy - Writ petition filed to challenge multiple convictions for the same offences arising from the same transaction - Convictions under IPC and Prize Chits Act in separate cases constitute distinct offences - Not violative of double jeopardy principle. (Paras 12, 33, 34)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner, Chairman of Artha Tatwa Group, convicted for multiple offences, including fraud and cheating under IPC and Prize Chits Act. Several FIRs filed across Odisha related to the same alleged fraudulent activity. Petitioner claims violation of double jeopardy protections.

Findings of Court:
Separate trials permitted as distinct offences produced by independent transactions, not barred under Article 20(2) or Section 300 Cr.P.C. Each act of deceit towards different investors considered a separate transaction.

Issues: Whether multiple convictions for similar offences violate the principle against double jeopardy and whether the complaints based on the same factual matrix constitute the same transaction.

Ratio Decidendi: Conviction for distinct offences from multiple frauds perpetrated against various investors does not infringe double jeopardy principles, as the offences are separate and distinct despite a common context of fraud.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background of multiple offences against petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. petitioner's arguments against multiple prosecutions. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. state's counterarguments on legal validity. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. analysis of the definition of 'same transaction'. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. conclusion on the non-applicability of double jeopardy. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
6. final decision on the writ petition. (Para 37)

JUDGMENT :

S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. The present Writ Petition preferred under Article 226, 227 read with Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the Cr P.C. seeking safeguard of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the conviction order dated 15.11.2017 passed by the CJM-cum-ASJ, Sambalpur in G.R. Case No.1014 of 2013 in which the petitioner has been convicted under Sections 120 -B, 406, 426, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 , 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and other cases arising out of the same transaction at different places in Odisha.

2. Other cases arising out of the same transaction have been lodged at different places in Odisha vide (a) G.R. Case Nos.- Phulbani Town P.S. Case No.19(8) of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.45/2013, Kandhamal; (b) Baripada Town P.S. Case No.52(18) of 2013, Mayurbhanj; (c) Udit Nagar P.S. Case No.78 of 2013, Sundargarh; (d) Keonjhar Town P.S. Case No.125 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.569 of 2013 Keonjhar; (e) G.R. Case No.129 of 2013, Ganjam; (f) G.R. Case No.732 of 2013, Ganjam; (g) G.R. Case No.982 of 2013, Ganjam, (h) G.R. Case No.867 of 2013, Ganjam; (i) G.R. No.183/2013, Ganjam; (j) C.T. Case No.2056 of 2013, Bhubaneswar; (k) C.T. Case No.1041 of 2013, Balasore; (l) G.R. Case No. 427 of 2013, Nayagarh respectively .

3. The background germane to better appreciate the instant challenge are that the petitioner herein was the Chairman/Managing Director of one “Artha Tatwa Consultancy Pvt. Ltd” having its registered office at Bhubaneswar as well as the President of Artha Tatwa Multipurpose Co- operative Society Ltd. and Artha Tatwa Multi-State Credit Co-operative Society Ltd.

4. The Special CJM, CBI, Bhubaneswar in SPE No.42(A) of 2014 has convicted the Petitioner for committing offences u/s. 120-B, 294, 341, 406, 409, 420, 471, 506/34 of IPC read with Sections 4 , 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 vide its order dated 06.04.2017. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 13.5.2013 and has served a jail term of seven years and has paid a fine of Rs.30,000. The selfsame court has also ordered that M/s. Artha Tatwa Multi-Purpose Co-operative Societies Ltd., M/s. Artha Tatwa Infra India Ltd. and all other associated artificial juristic persons shall pay compensation amount of Rs.250 Crores.

5. Based on the selfsame facts and circumstances, another complaint was registered against the Petitioner at Kharavela Nagar P.S. The CJM-cum- ASJ, Khurda without considering the facts and circumstances as well as the prior conviction of the petitioner for the same offence, took cognizance of above Criminal Case No.145 of 2013 corresponding to C.T. Case No.2056 of 2013 and vide judgment dated 31.07.2017 the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the same set of offences for seven years and fine up to ฀75,000 under same provisions as above i.e., Section 120 -B, 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 4 , 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.

6. The Artha Tatwa Group of Companies which were primarily registered under the Companies Act and the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 were engaged in the business of collecting funds from public through various schemes with promise of high returns. The funds were also collected through other companies l