Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1061 (ORI)

Shantiprabha Dash v. State of Orissa

2016-11-08

J.P.DAS

body2016
JUDGMENT : J.P. DAS, J. This is an appeal under Section 13 of the Odisha Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as OPID Act). Herein the order dated 19.02.2016 passed by the learned. Presiding Officer of the Designated Court under the OPID Act, Cuttack has been challenged rejecting the prayer of the appellant to release the properties purchased by her from attachment. 2. The backdrop of the case in brief is that the prosecution was lodged against one M/s.Seashore Group of Companies with the allegation that the company was collecting deposits from the public unauthorisedly promising high return but the money so collected was misappropriated for the own benefit of the Directors and other office bearers of the company without repaying to the depositors and investors. The matter was first investigated into by the CID CB (Economic Offence Wing), Bhubaneswar and subsequently, it was taken over by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short ‘C.B.I.') as per direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In course of investigation, properties and other assets of the said company were seized along with other properties and accounts having relation with the said company in order to secure that the general public, who had invested their money in the company would get back their amounts. On promulgation of the OPID Act, the competent authority was notified and the designated Court under the said Act was established. The competent authority on receipt of the orders of the Government made an application to the Designated Court for making ad interim order of attachment absolute along with direction to sale the properties so attached by public auction as per Section 4 (3) of the OPID Act. 3. The present appellant appearing before the Designated Court made an application that she purchased certain properties through the registered sale deed dated 04.07.2006 out of her own source and that of her husband, which have been attached by the Government in an arbitrary and illegal manner, even though those properties had no relation with the alleged company. It was alleged that the said properties were seized by the Investigating Agency without asking the appellant for any show-cause and those have been included in the list of properties given by the competent authority seeking the final order of the Designated Court under the OPID Act. It was alleged that the said properties were seized by the Investigating Agency without asking the appellant for any show-cause and those have been included in the list of properties given by the competent authority seeking the final order of the Designated Court under the OPID Act. Hence, the appellant prayed before the learned Designated Court that her properties be released from attachment. The said prayer of the appellant has been rejected by the learned Designated Court by the impugned order dated 19.02.2016. 4. It has been submitted by the appellant that the impugned order has been passed without application of judicial mind and that the appellant has been put to unnecessary harassment since his properties as a bona fide purchaser have been attached illegally in the proceeding. 5. It was submitted on behalf of the State that the present appellant happens to be mother of the Managing Director and one Director of Seashore Group of Companies and, therefore, the properties owned by her are family properties of the Directors of the company. In this respect it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that she purchased the property in the year, 2006 whereas the alleged company was registered in the year 2008 and hence, her properties could not have any relation with the properties acquired by the company mis-utilizing its funds and as alleged. It was submitted on behalf of the State that the allegation is that after collecting huge amounts from general public unauthorizedly, the Directors had siphoned the funds for their own benefits by way of purchasing properties, vehicles etc. and the properties so acquired came under the purview of the investigation and were attached. It was further submitted that the specific purpose of enquiry by the Designated Court is to investigate into the claims of persons for having any interest in the properties attached or any portion thereof under the provisions of Section 9 of the OPID Act and to pass final order as per Section 9 (6) of the OPID Act. Thus, it was submitted that unless the enquiry is completed, to release the properties of the present appellant on a simple prayer that she was a bona fide purchaser, would amount to pre-judging the case and the said contention was, therefore, obviously pre-mature. 6. Perused the impugned order. Thus, it was submitted that unless the enquiry is completed, to release the properties of the present appellant on a simple prayer that she was a bona fide purchaser, would amount to pre-judging the case and the said contention was, therefore, obviously pre-mature. 6. Perused the impugned order. The learned Designated Court has observed that the purpose of the OPID Act is to investigate into the claim or any objection made by any party claiming interest in the attached property and the final order is to be passed after completion of the entire exercise. Thus, learned court has observed that to seek for an order to release the properties so attached prior to final disposal of the proceeding smacks of an intention to delay the proceeding preventing the Court to take up hearing of the main case. In view of the specific provisions of the Act and the purpose of its legislation to secure the interests of the general public, who have invested their hard earned money, by way of sale of the attached properties after complete adjudication of the claims of different persons in the said property. I find absolutely no illegality in the impugned order so as to be interfered with. 7, Another contention was raised in course of hearing that as per Section 9 (6) of the OPID Act, the enquiry by the Designated Court is to be completed within a period of 180 days from the date of receipt of application under Section 4 (3) of the OPID Act from the competent authority. Since in the case at hand, the enquiry has not been completed within the prescribed period of 180 days by the Designated Court, the enquiry should be dropped releasing the attached properties. Of course no specific finding has been given by the learned Designated Court in this respect in the impugned order in this case. The said sole contention having been raised in another appeal before this Court vide CRLA NO.256 of 2016, which was also heard along with this appeal, is being decided separately and simultaneously, which would govern this appeal also. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed being devoid of merit. Appeal dismissed.