Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1223 (ORI)

Prahallad Mohapatra v. State of Orissa

2016-12-09

S.K.SAHOO

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. 1. Heard Mr. Haripad Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Dillip Kumar Misra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners to quash the impugned order dated 01.08.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balasore in Misc. Case No. 28 of 2016 which arises out of C.T. Case No. 373 of 2013/T.R. No. 2329 of 2013 under Annexure-3 in which the petition filed by the petitioners under section 457 read with section 451 of the Cr.P.C. for release of the sealed first floor of the building in favour of the petitioners was rejected. 3. As per the First Information Report dated 10.05.2013 lodged by one Sudeep Kumar Mohapatra, A.S.I of Police, Khaira Police Station, it is the prosecution case that the informant conducted enquiry in the office of M/s. Prayag Infotech Hi-Rise Ltd. (hereafter ‘the company’) situated at Badakhuri, Soro, Balasore to verify regarding suspicious financial activities of the company and during the enquiry, it came to the knowledge that the company was collecting public deposits by promising high interest rates on different schemes and was indulging in money circulation activities. It is the further prosecution case that the said company is not a listed company with R.B.I as a non-banking financial company (NBFC) or under SEBI. 4. Basing on the F.I.R., Soro P.S. Case No. 184 of 2013 was registered under sections 420/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (hereafter ‘PCMCSB Act’) which corresponds to C.T. Case No. 373 of 2013 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balasore. 5. It is stated at the Bar that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has already been filed on 13.09.2013 for commission of offences under sections 420/467/468/471/ 406/120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 4, 5 and 6 of the PCMCSB Act against one Rupak Kumar Barik. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Haripad Mohanty submitted that the first floor of the building of the petitioners was given on rent to the Company which was locked and sealed during course of investigation since 10.05.2013. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Haripad Mohanty submitted that the first floor of the building of the petitioners was given on rent to the Company which was locked and sealed during course of investigation since 10.05.2013. The petitioners being the lawful owners of the house in question, filed a petition under section 451 read with section 457 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court for a direction to the Inspector in charge, Soro police station to release the property in their favour which was registered as Misc. Case No. 28 of 2016. The learned Magistrate rejected the petition mainly on the ground that the petitioners having knowledge about the illegal transaction of money circulation by the alleged chit fund company, had let out the first floor of their building to the said company and thereby they have indirectly encouraged the company for which the general public suffered huge loss. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners while challenging the impugned order contended that there is absolutely no material on record that the petitioners had let out the house to the company with knowledge that the company was carrying on money circulation business rather it has been given to the company on monthly rent basis. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Investigating Officer has already seized the registers, documents, the hard disks and RAM collected from CPU which are the incriminating materials in the case and those are now in the custody of the investigating agency. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the police are at liberty to take the rest of the articles which are kept in that room but unless vacant possession of the first floor of the house is given to the petitioners at an earliest, they will be seriously prejudiced. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further urged that when the investigation has already been completed and charge sheet has been submitted, no useful purpose would be served by depriving the petitioners to use the first floor in question or give that first floor on rent to somebody particularly when the petitioners have suffered huge loss in the last three and half years as they were unable to let out the first floor. While concluding his submissions, it was urged that the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 9. Mr. Dillip Kumar Misra, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand submitted that some documents and other articles are still left in the room of the first floor of the house of the petitioners which are under lock and key and sealed, however, he does not dispute that the charge sheet has already been submitted. 10. Considering the submissions on behalf of the respective parties, it appears that the petitioners are not the accused in the case and they are the landlords who had let out the first floor of their building to the company on good faith. The petitioners must be mainly concerned with the monthly rent and maintenance of the tenanted premises. No doubt the landlords used to ask the tenants about their avocation or in what way the premises are likely to be used by the tenant in future but it is not expected that the landlords must be aware about the details of the business which the tenants were carrying on in the tenanted premises. If the landlord knowingly permits or allows the tenanted premises to be used for the commission of any offence by any person which is punishable under any Act like section 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act then certainly the landlord would be liable. Section 7 of the PCMCSB Act does not specifically state about the sealing of the tenanted premises where the prize chit or money circulation scheme activities are going on though it states that all the things found in the said premises which are intended to be used, or reasonably suspected to have been used in connection with any such business can be seized. 11. The reasoning given by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balasore in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners in releasing the sealed first floor of the building in their favour, is far from convincing and based on assumption which is not warranted by law. When all the relevant articles have been seized and the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been submitted, there is no justification in keeping the first floor of the building further under lock and key and in sealed condition. 12. When all the relevant articles have been seized and the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been submitted, there is no justification in keeping the first floor of the building further under lock and key and in sealed condition. 12. Accordingly, it is directed that if any other articles of the company are still there in the tenanted premises of the first floor of the building, the investigation officer/Inspector in charge of Soro police station shall seize the same in accordance with law and give vacant possession to the petitioners by 23rd December, 2016. 13. A free copy of the order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State for giving necessary instruction to the investigation officer/Inspector in charge, Sora police station to do the needful. 14. With the aforesaid observation, the Criminal Revision petition is disposed of.