Orissa High Court
Ramesh Chandra Sahu vs State Of Odisha (Opid) on 1 August, 2022
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
CRLA No. 217 of 2020
From the orders dated 24.01.2020 and 01.11.2021 passed by
the Presiding Officer, Designated Court, OPID, Balasore in C.T.
No.8(C) of 2016.
-----------------------------
Ramesh Chandra Sahu ....... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Odisha (OPID) ....... Respondent
For Appellant: - Mr. Sirish Chandra Tripathy
For Respondent: - Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan
Mr. J.P. Patra
Special Counsel
-----------------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing and Judgment: 01.08.2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. SAHOO, J. 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
// 2 //
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
Page 2 of 12
// 3 //
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
Page 3 of 12
// 4 //
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
Page 4 of 12
// 5 //
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 Officer found prima facie case against
the appellant and accordingly, submitted charge sheet
under sections 420/468/465/294/506 of the Indian
Page 5 of 12
// 6 //
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.
4. The appellant filed a petition for discharge
under section 239 of Cr.P.C. before the learned trial
Court. However, the learned trial Court after perusal of
the first information report and the statements of the
witnesses and the fact that the appellant posed himself
as the Director of Rose Valley Company, Nilgiri Zone
came to hold that the prima facie case is established
relating to the commission of the offence under which
charge sheet has been submitted and accordingly,
rejected the petition for discharge as per the order
dated 24.01.2020 and framed charges against the
appellant 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.
Page 6 of 12
// 7 //
5. When the matter was taken up for admission
on 14.02.2022, the learned counsel for the appellant
contended that the framing of charge under section 6 of
the O.P.I.D. Act against the appellant is not sustainable
in the eye of law as the same is applicable to a person,
who is responsible for the management of the affairs of
the Financial Establishment and neither there is any
document nor any oral evidence available on record to
show that the appellant is in any way connected with
the management of the affairs of the Financial
Establishment. Notice was issued to the respondent and
the case was adjourned from time to time in order to
enable the learned counsel for the respondent to obtain
instruction in terms of the order dated 14.02.2022 as to
whether the appellant is in any way connected with the
management of the affairs of Rose Valley or not. On
04.07.2022, when the matter was taken up, a
submission was made on behalf of the learned Special
Counsel appearing for the State of Odisha that prima
Page 7 of 12
// 8 //
facie it appears that the appellant posed himself as a
Director of Rose Valley Company and collected huge
amount from the depositors and again time was sought
for to verify whether as there is any material either oral
or documentary to show that the appellant was in any
way responsible for the management of the affairs of
the financial establishment i.e. Rose Valley Company.
Today, learned Special Counsel for the State of Odisha
has produced the enquiry report received from the
Officer in-charge of Berhampur police station which
indicates that on examination of the complainant and
witnesses, it was ascertained that the then
Investigating Officer, S.I. Gopal Singh seized Rose
Valley agent register 2007/2008 (98 agents) and the
same left in zima to Ramesh Chandra Sahu after
executing proper zimanama. Similarly the then
Investigating Officer seized Rose Valley
acknowledgment slips-14 sheets from the complainant
which were issued by the appellant and during enquiry,
Page 8 of 12
// 9 //
the complainant produced a Xerox copy of undertaking
dated 18.09.2015 given before Gram Sabha, Naranpur
in which the appellant had mentioned that after
December, 2015, he would refund back the deposited
money slowly to the depositors. Similarly, it is
mentioned that the appellant absconded from the
locality after registration of the case at Berhampur
police station. The enquiry report is taken on record.
6. Section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act deals with
punishment for default in repayment of deposits and
interests honouring the commitment. In order to attract
the ingredients of the offence, the following aspects are
to be proved:-
(i) Default in returning the deposit by any
Financial Establishment; or
(ii) Default in payment of interest on the
deposit or failure to return in any kind by any
Financial Establishment; or
Page 9 of 12
// 10 //
(iii) Failure to render service by any
Financial Establishment for which the deposits
have been made.
In the event any of the aforesaid aspects is
proved, every person responsible for the management
of the affairs of the Financial Establishment shall be
held guilty. 'Financial Establishment' has been defined
under section 2(d) of the O.P.I.D. Act and 'deposit' has
been defined under section 2(b) of the O.P.I.D. Act.
The word 'default' in section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act has
been used in conjunction with honouring the
commitment and therefore, it depends upon the
reciprocal promises.
7. Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, learned Special
Counsel appearing for the State of Odisha in O.P.I.D.
Act matters fairly submitted that nothing has been
seized during course of investigation to show that the
appellant was in any way responsible for the
management of the affairs of the Rose Valley, however
Page 10 of 12
// 11 //
even though the appellant was not in the management
of the affairs of Rose Valley but he posed himself as the
Director of Rose Valley of Nilgiri Branch and collected
deposits from different persons. He placed reliance in
the case of Prasan Kumar Patra and another -Vrs.-
State of Odisha reported in (2020) 79 Orissa
Criminal Reports 284 but the factual scenario of that
case is quite distinguishable as the appellants of the
said case were the Managing Director and Director of
M/s. Z-Infra Construction Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar,
which is not the case here.
8. In view of the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the respective parties and the
materials available on record, I am of the humble view
that one of the necessary ingredients of the offence
under section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act i.e. the person
concerned must be responsible for the management of
the affairs of Financial Establishment is conspicuously
absent in the case. Therefore, the framing of charge
Page 11 of 12
// 12 //
under section 6 of the O.P.I.D. Act is not sustainable in
the eye of law and the same is hereby quashed.
However, I am of the humble view that there are
sufficient materials on record for framing of charges
under sections 420/468/465/294/506 of the Indian
Penal Code and sections 4/5/6 of the Prize Chits and
Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and as
such impugned order dated 01.11.2021 of the learned
trial Court in framing of charges for such offences is
quite justified and upheld. The appellant is now to face
trial before the appropriate Court and not before the
Presiding Officer, Designated Court, OPID, Balasore.
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly
allowed.
.................................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 1st August, 2022/RKMishra Page 12 of 12