w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Nabakishore Das v/s Republic of India


Company & Directors' Information:- G DAS & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74992WB1935PTC008299

Company & Directors' Information:- THE REPUBLIC PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22212JH1958PTC000615

Company & Directors' Information:- DAS & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U72100AS1946PTC000740

Company & Directors' Information:- K C DAS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15433WB1946PTC013592

Company & Directors' Information:- D K DAS & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1938PTC009288

Company & Directors' Information:- U C DAS & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U31200WB1987PTC042709

Company & Directors' Information:- DAS & DAS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1950PTC019222

Company & Directors' Information:- A S DAS CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1957PTC023552

Company & Directors' Information:- REPUBLIC CORPN PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1948PTC006574

Company & Directors' Information:- DAS-G INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24304DL2020PTC370609

Company & Directors' Information:- P K DAS & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210WB1955PTC022259

    Criminal Revision No. 394 of 2019

    Decided On, 16 March 2020

    At, High Court of Orissa

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

    For the Appearing Parties: Deepali Mohapatra, Anup Kumar Bose, Advocates.



Judgment Text


1. The present revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the learned Special C.J.M. (C.B.I.), Odisha, Bhubaneswar dated 20.03.2019 in Crl. Misc. Case No.52 of 2019 (arising out of SPE No.06 of 2014) with further prayer to direct the C.B.I. to lift the ban on the property in question of the petitioner under Annexure-1.

2. The property in question is measuring an area Ac.12.06 dec. spreading in 37 plots, 10 khatas and two mouzas, namely, Atharnala and Gopinathpur @ Rautrapur in the district of Puri as mentioned in detail under Annexure-1.

3. The land in question was recorded in the name of the petitioner and his family members and in order to develop their land for an apartment complex, they formed a company in the name and style of M/s S. Chanchala Pvt. Ltd. Combines. The said land in question was offered to M/s. Green India Infra Projects Ltd. for the purpose on agreement on share basis to the extent of 37% of the project in favour of the petitioner-Company and the petitioner accepted payment of Rs.3,00,00,500/- on 21.03.2012 and 16.04.2012 through cheques transferred to the account of the petitioner. For transaction of the business, the memorandum of agreement was signed and two general powers of attorney were executed in favour of M/s. Green India Infra Projects Ltd. It is mentioned in the revision petition that subsequently memorandum of agreement as well as general powers of attorney were revoked on 03.03.2014 as M/s. Green India Infra Projects Ltd. showed its inability for the purpose.

But as reveals, a criminal misc. case was instituted against M/s. Green India Infra Projects Ltd. and others by the C.B.I. in RC.11/S/2014 for commission of offences under Secs.120- B/420/409/506, I.P.C. and Secs.4/5/6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 in which charge-sheet was filed on 02.12.2014 against the accused persons, namely, Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Shri Sunil Kumar Panda and Shri Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jitu Mishra along with M/s. Green India Properties Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Green India Infra Projects Ltd., M/s. Green India Retailing Private Limited and M/s. Green India Multi State Member's Credit Co-operative Society Limited.

4. In course of investigation, the C.B.I. in Letter No.1939, dated 14.12.2015 issued to the Inspector General of Registration, Board of Revenue, Registration Wing, Govt. of Odisha, Cuttack requested to stop sale/mortgage in respect of the properties concerning the case registered by the C.B.I., which are in total 1631 properties including the property in question of the petitioner concerning the present revision case. Subsequently, on 4.2.2019 a petition was filed by the present petitioner before the learned Special C.J.M. (C.B.I.), Odisha, Bhubaneswar praying for permission to deposit an amount of Rs.3,00,00,500/- with further direction to the Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack (Registration Wing) to lift the conditions imposed on the petitioner and his family members. The said prayer was rejected by the learned Special C.J.M. (C.B.I.), Osidha, Bhubaneswar in the impugned order dated 20.03.2019 under Annxure-15, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in the present revision.

5. I have already heard Miss Deepali Mohapatra, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anup Kumar Bose, learned Asst. Solicitor General for the opposite party-Republic of India (C.B.I.).

6. The opposite party did not dispute the claim of ownership over the property in question by the petitioner and his family members nor raise any dispute to the Company, namely, M/s. S. Chanchala Pvt. Ltd. Combines. The opposite party also does not claim either the petitioner or any of his family members or M/s. S. Chanchala Pvt. Ltd. Combines as one of the accused in the case registered by it. The acceptance of money amounting to Rs.3,00,00,500/- by the petitioner from M/s. Green India Infra Projects Ltd. is admitted by the petitioner.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that since the agreement for development of the land for the apartment complex by M/s. Green India Infra Projects Ltd. has been cancelled and the power of attorney has been revoked by the deed of revocation, the conditions imposed by the C.B.I. in its letter dated 14.12.2015 for stop of sale/mortgage of the property in question be waived with deposit of the entire amount of Rs.3,00,00,500/- in favour of the C.B.I.

8. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the opposite party that the petitioner may be permitted to deposit the aforesaid amount in its account, but the property in question has been restricted against sale/mortgage for the purpose of an effective transparent investigation keeping in view the greater interest of the victimised innocent depositors. It is further submitted by the opposite party that though charge-sheet in the case has been filed on 02.12.2014, but still the investigation is open in terms of Sec.173(8) of the Cr.P.C.

9. On a thorough scrutiny of the contentions of both the parties reveal that the restrictions imposed on the property in question for the reason that the amount paid by M/s. Green India Infra Projects Ltd. to the petitioner is out of the proceeds of the crime it has committed. The amount what is received by the petitioner from M/s. Green India Infra Projects Ltd. is undisputedly not more than Rs.3,00,00,500/- and in this respect the opposite party does not raise any dispute in its reply dated 12.02.2020. Here it is contended by the opposite party that the same property in question has been further attached and seized by the Enforcement Directorate. But it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Enforcement Directorate is a separate agency for investigation of the offences coming within its jurisdiction and the petitioner is no way concerned with the Enforcement Directorate in the present case and for the purpose of their investigation, they have to institute a separate case altogether independent of the present case and they cannot impose themselves on the petitioner for the property in question in the present proceeding.

10. Be that as it may, the Enforcement Directorate is not a party in the present revision case before this Court and the petitioner has not claimed any relief against the Enforcement Directorate and this case is concerning between the petitioner and the C.B.I. in registration of RC.11/S/2014/CBI. No such specific case reference by the Enforcement Directorate has been averred by the petitioner in the revision petition or by the opposite party in their reply dated 12.02.2020 though it has been stated by the C.B.I. in their reply about attachment of the property in question by the Enforcement Directorate.

11. Therefore, the attachment, if any, by the Enforcement Directorate, which is a separate and distinct issue, cannot affect the proceedings of the present case registered by the C.B.I. When the owners of the property in question are not the accused in the present case and they are ready to deposit the entire undisputed accepted money in favour of the investigating agency, i.e., C.B.I. for the property in question, no reason is seen not to lift the restriction in respect of the property in question. It

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

is thus felt apposite, in the interest of justice, to lift the restrictions imposed by the C.B.I. 12. Accordingly, it is directed that in case the petitioner deposits the amount of Rs.3,00,00,500/- (Rupees Three Crores Five Hundred) within a period of one month from today in the account of opposite party as provided in their reply dated 12.02.2020, the opposite party shall take steps for modification of the conditions imposed in pursuance of their Letter No.1939, dated 14.12.2015 in respect of the property in question concerning the present revision case if the same is not required to be restricted in connection with any other case. The CRLREV is disposed of. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned Special C.J.M.(C.B.I.), Odisha, Bhubaneswar without delay.
O R