Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1394 (ORI)

Pravat Ranjan Biswal v. Republic Of India

2017-12-01

B.RATH

body2017
ORDER Biswanath Rath, J. - Heard Sri A.K. Parija, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner being assisted by Sri B.K. Sharma, Advocate and Sri K.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the C.B.I. 2. The petitioner, Sri Parvat Ranjan Biswal, a sitting M.L.A of the rulling party in the State of Odisha has filed this application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking bail in connection with R.C No. 49/S/2014-SCB-Kol corresponding to S.P.E. No. 44/2014 pending on the file of the Special C.J.M., C.B.I., Bhubaneswar facing the case for commission of offence under Section 120-B/409/468/467 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4,5 and 6 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. 3. The factual narrations disclosed that the accused Pravat Ranjan Biswal was arrested on 18.9.2017 and was produced before the Court of learned Special C.J.M., C.B.I., Bhubaneswar on 19.9.2017. The application for bail being moved, the learned Special C.J.M., C.B.I., Bhubaneswar rejected the bail application involving the petitioner on 23.9.2017. Moving a bail application in the court of the Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar on 25.9.2017 vide B.A. No. 1190 of 2017, the said bail application was also rejected by the Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar vide his order dated 26.9.2017 but for the intervention of the court, the petitioner was provided with medical treatment in the Capital Hospital at Bhubaneswar being in judicial custody and, thereafter, on being recommended by the Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar, the petitioner has been shifted to the S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack for necessary treatment purpose. The petitioner as on today is in the S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack for treatment purpose while remaining in the judicial custody. 4. Filing the bail application, Sri Ashok Kumar Parija, learned senior counsel being associated by Sri Bigyan Kumar Sharma submitted that petitioner's wife owned a plot of land at Jajpur measuring 32.5 gunths. On 4.5.2011 petitioner's wife entered into an agreement for sale of the said land with Seashore Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited for a consideration of Rs. 29.25 lakhs at the cost of Rs. 90,000/- per gunth. It is stated that stamp papers were also purchased and a document was also notarized. On 4.5.2011 petitioner's wife entered into an agreement for sale of the said land with Seashore Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited for a consideration of Rs. 29.25 lakhs at the cost of Rs. 90,000/- per gunth. It is stated that stamp papers were also purchased and a document was also notarized. It is further disclose by Sri Parija, learned senior counsel that involving the aforesaid transaction, the petitioner's wife received two cheques from Prashant Dash of Seashore Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/-, a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- on 30.4.2011 and a further sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 16.9.2011 in two instalments. A sum of Rs. 8,64,000/- was paid from the said account of the petitioner's wife to one Rajalaxmi Jena and the involvement of the present petitioner in the said transaction is only to the effect of signing the demand draft form. It is also stated that subsequently a sale deed was prepared in between the wife of the petitioner and Prashant Dash on 25.4.2012 where Prashant Dash has also put his thumb impression and signature in the said sale deed. But however the sale deed could not be registered as Prashant Dash could not be present. Particular stamp papers as well as the documents on being seized are under the custody of the C.B.I Authority Presently. It is further stated that in the meantime, investigation started against the Seashore Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited by the Crime Branch of Odisha since 18.7.2012 on 20.7.2012, petitioner's wife executed a cancellation deed involving the aforesaid sale transaction with Seashore Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited where Prashant Dash on behalf of Seashore Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited admitted to have received Rs. 25,00,000/- in cash back from the wife of the petitioner. Stamp papers are also purchased. In the meantime, the investigation by the Crime Branch was transferred to C.B.I. pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Subrata Chattoraj vs. Union of India and others vide Writ Petition (civil) No. 401/2013 and Writ Petitioner (civil) No. 413/ 2013. The petitioner was interrogated by the C.B.I. authority in September, 2014 and subsequently the petitioner and his wife all through cooperated in the investigation. The petitioner was interrogated by the C.B.I. authority in September, 2014 and subsequently the petitioner and his wife all through cooperated in the investigation. It is under the above circumstances and for the factual narrations stated by Sri Parija, as indicated hereinabove, Sri Parija learned senior counsel submitted that for the aligations involving the petitioner in the whole transaction to the extent that his wife has received a particular sun of rupees from a company under investigation of the C.B.I pursuant to a direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court for the offences under Sections 420/ 468/ 467/ 120-B/ 409 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, further, taking the plea that looking to the entire narrations involving the intention of sale, fixation of price, purchase of stamp papers, payment of money from the account of petitioner's wife, cancellation of the intention for sale, payment back of the entire amount by the wife to the ponzi company all in cash and further purchase of stamp paper for execution of cancellation deed nowhere establishes any hand of the petitioner involving the money trail if at all involved therein. Sri Parija further taking this Court to the health condition of the petitioner constantly remaining under treatment of a group of Doctors for serious ailment involving the petitioner also prayed for a sympathetic consideration of the case of the petitioner in the matter of grant of bail. Sri Parija also stated that since the petitioner is a sitting M.L.A. of State Assembly, there is no chance of his being fleeing away. Sri Parija, in support of bail involving the petitioner producing an order of the Hon'ble Apex Court involving the case of Pravat Kumar Dash vs. Central Bureau of investigation, Criminal Appeal No. (S) 1110 of 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3805 of 2017), for the grant of bail in favour of Pravat Kumar Dash, one of the main accused of company involved, requested this Court for considering the case of the petitioner for grant of bail. Sri Parija also brought to the notice of the Court that other assailant, namely, Prashant Kumar Dash has also been released by the Hon'ble Apex Court on bail in the meantime. 5. Sri Parija also brought to the notice of the Court that other assailant, namely, Prashant Kumar Dash has also been released by the Hon'ble Apex Court on bail in the meantime. 5. Sri K.C Mishra, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the C.B.I. While seriously objecting to each of the plea advanced by Sri Parija, bringing to the notice of this court to the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court involving Subrata Chattoraj vs. Union of India and Ors. Vide W.R (C). Nos 401 of 2013 as well as 413 of 2013 submitted that for the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court after observing involvement of a serious financial irregularities by the , company involved herein has transferred the matter from the Crime Branch of the State to the C.B.I. Hand. Sri Mishra, further submitted that though the charge sheet involving Prashant Dash and Pravat Kumar Dash has already been filed but the investigation so far as the present petitioner is concerned, the matter is still under investigation and filing of the charge-sheet may take some time looking to the breadth and length of the investigation. Further, taking this Court to the series of incidents taken place involving money transaction, as claimed by Sri Parija, Sri Mishra, Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the C.B.I submitted that considering a hue and cry involving money laundering by the companies including the Seashore Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited, investigation involving the allegation has in fact started since 2011 and it is only after coming to know that an investigation has already been initiated involving the Seashore Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited, the entire game plan in such a cogent case of sale transaction involving the petitioner's wife, receipt of money, cancellation of desire to sale, return of money again all in cash are all a game plan to keep the petitioner, a sitting M.L.A. of the rulling party, away from the purview of the investigation. Sri K.C. Mishra vehemently urged that receipt of money in the account of the wife of a sitting M.L.A. and the payment back of the money all in cash, each itself is a pointer to the offences alleged involving the petitioner. Sri K.C. Mishra vehemently urged that receipt of money in the account of the wife of a sitting M.L.A. and the payment back of the money all in cash, each itself is a pointer to the offences alleged involving the petitioner. On the premises of continuing investigation and for the requirement of time for closure of the investigation looking to the breadth and length of the petitioner, Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the C.B.I. urged release of the petitioner at this stage of the matter shall not only hamper the investigation but may also lead to interference in the investigation process. Further, taking this Court to the statements recorded so far by the Central Bureau of Investigation having prima facie establishing a case against the petitioner for the offences involved, Sri Mishra, objected the move of the petitioner for bail seriously. Answering the request for bail on the ground of health condition of the petitioner, Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the C.B.I. submitted that the C.B.I. Authority being conscious of the state of health of the petitioner is acting in accordance with the advices of the team of Doctors looking after the petitioner and for the petitioner's being treated in the highest hospital of the State, there is no question of no proper treatment given to the petitioner. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds the offshoot of the investigation involving the petitioner a sitting M.L.A of Cuttack Sadar, an important place of State of Odisha and of ruling party initially arose from a direction of the State Government for having an investigation into the financial irregularities of different private organizations including Seashore Multipurpose Cooperatives Society Limited in the state of Odhisa looting poors money under the guise of political patronage, for the bizarre state of affair by the State Crime Branch causing enormous delay in getting into the trial aspect and also taking into the facts of similar situation in other States like West Bengal, Assam and Tripura, number of writ petitions were moved to the Hon'ble Apex Court in W.P.(C).No. 401 of 2013 and W.P.(C).No. 413 of 2013 making request therein for transfer of investigation of the financial irregularities involving private companies through the State Investigation Agencies to the Central Bureau of Investigation under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. The aforesaid writ petitioners upon realization of the bizarre state of affairs involving the State Investigation Agency and not achieving the real end to such allegations involving similar offences in Assam, West Bengal, Tripura and also in Odisha, the Hon'ble Apex Court while giving direction, in paragraphs 24 and 28 observed as follows: "24. That leaves us with the State of Odisha where too Saradha Group of Companies and a host of similar other companies appear to have indulged in similar activities giving rise to considerable public resentment against the authorities for not preventing such companies from defrauding the innocent public Writ Petition (C) Nos. 413 of 2013 and 324 of 2914 seek transfer of such cases registered in the State of Odisha to the CBI on the analogy of what was done in relation to Tripura and Assam keeping in view the magnitude of the scam as also those involved, in the same. 28. An affidavit has been filed by the State of Odisha pursuant to the said directions in which the FIRs where the State Investigation Agency is examining the larger conspiracy angle, have been identified. A perusal of the Affidavit, further, show cause that 163 companies were involved in the chit-fund scam in the State of Odisha who have collected Rs. 4565 crores approximately from the public out of which a sum of Rs. 2904 crores has been collected by 43 companies mentioned in the list referred to earlier excluding M/s Nabadiganta Capital Services Ltd. against which no criminal case have been registered so far. The affidavit also states that 7,45,293 envelopes containing claim petitions have been received from the depositors by Justice R.K. Patra Commission. The affidavit also gives details of the properties of the companies seized/sealed in the course of the on-going investigation. The affidavit also refers to payment of Rs. 24,17,65,866/- allegedly made to 18,596 investors by M/s Prayag Infotech High Rise Limited, Kolkata and the willingness expressed by M/s Rose Valley Hostels and Entertainment Limited to pay back the investors. Larger conspiracy angle is according to the affidavit being examined in three cases. The affidavit also refers to payment of Rs. 24,17,65,866/- allegedly made to 18,596 investors by M/s Prayag Infotech High Rise Limited, Kolkata and the willingness expressed by M/s Rose Valley Hostels and Entertainment Limited to pay back the investors. Larger conspiracy angle is according to the affidavit being examined in three cases. These are (i) CID OS Case No. 39 dated 18.07.2012 under Section 420/120-BIPC read with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act,-1978 registered against M/s Seashore Group of Companies, (ii) Case No. 44 dated 07.02.2013 under the same provisions registered in Kharavelnagar Police Station (Bhubaneswar Urban Police District) against M/s Artha Tatwa Group of Companies and (iii) EOW PS Case No. 19 dated 06.06.2013 registered against M/s Astha International Ltd. It was submitted that while charge sheets have been submitted in three cases mentioned above within the period of limitation, investigation has been kept open under section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 to investigate the larger conspiracy angle. The affidavit also refers to certain legislation's enacted in the State of Odisha to protect the interest of depositors. It also refers to certain interim orders passed by the Government for attachment of the properties of the defaulting companies." Further, in paragraphs 30 and 38, the Hon'ble Apex Court also came to observe as follows: "30. The factual narrative given in the foregoing paragraphs clearly establish the following : 1. That financial scam nicknamed "chit-fun" scam that has hit the States of West Bengal, Tripura, Assam and Odisha involves collection of nearly 10,000 crores (approx.) from the general public especially the weaker sections of the society which have fallen prey to the temptations of handsome returns of such deposits extended by the companies involved in the scam. 2. That investigation so far concluded suggests that the collection of money from the depositors was neither legally permissible nor were such collections/deposits invested in any meaningful business activity that could generate the high returns/promised to the depositors. 3. That more than 25 lac claims have so far been received by the Commissions of Enquiries set up on the States of Odisha and west Bengal which is indicative of the magnitude of scam in terms of number of citizens that have been defrauded by the ponzi companies. 4. 3. That more than 25 lac claims have so far been received by the Commissions of Enquiries set up on the States of Odisha and west Bengal which is indicative of the magnitude of scam in terms of number of citizens that have been defrauded by the ponzi companies. 4. That the companies indulge in ponzi schemes have their tentacles in different States giving the scam inter-state ramifications. That such huge collections could have international money laundering dimensions cannot be ruled out and needs to be effectively investigated. 5. That Investigation so far conducted reveals involvement of several political and other influential personalities wielding considerable clout and influence. 6. That the role of regulators like SEBI, authorities under the Companies Act and Reserve Bank of India is also under investigation by the State Police Agency which may have to be taken to its logical conclusion by an effective and independent investigation. 38. We make it clear that nothing said in this order, shall be taken as a final opinion as to the complicity of those being invested or others who may be investigated questioned or interrogated in relation to the scam. Hon'ble Apex Court finally concluded the proceeding with observations in paragraph 34-B which reads as follows : "34-B. State of Odisha : All cases registered against 44 companies mentioned in our order dated 26th March, 2014 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 413 of 2013. The CBI is also permitted to conduct further investigation into all such cases in which chargesheet have already been filed." 7. As per the said direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the investigation was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation Unit of the State of Odisha and during investigation process the transaction involved herein having been detected and finding involvement of the petitioner having a money transaction with the Seashore Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited an FIR was lodged involving the petitioner. It appears from the records produced by Sri Mishra that the investigation is still in progress, it also appears health condition of the petitioner is also an obstruction in the process of completion of the investigation. 8. It appears from the records produced by Sri Mishra that the investigation is still in progress, it also appears health condition of the petitioner is also an obstruction in the process of completion of the investigation. 8. Perusal of the records and the statement so far recorded by the Investigating Agency, from the reading of the statement of one Padmalochan Swain recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., 1973 from the point of prima facie case, this Court finds the C.B.I has primafaciely collected information establishing the money transaction in the account of the wife of the petitioner, the refund of the money involved to the Seashore Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited to have been admitted by the witnesses so far examined and particularly having been admitted by the petitioner as appearing from the submission of learned senior counsel Sri Parija. There is also no dispute to the fact that petitioner is not only a sitting M.L.A of the Constituency, Cuttack Sadar but also belong to the ruling party of the State. It appears, not only his wife has received huge money from the Seashore Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited under the investigation of the C.B.I. but as admitted the receipted money has also been refunded to the Seashore Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited and all in cash. Not only that, the statement so far recorded also brings forth that Sri Biswal being an influential political man of an important Constituency has a large local support and protection. Again for the stage of the investigation and for the exposer of the petitioner in the meetings being conducted by the Seashore Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited taking place in some districts at different point of time, the allegation of political patronage at this primitive stage of investigation cannot be ruled out. For the stage of investigation, this Court finds force in the submission of Sri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation that the investigation might be affected for the release of the petitioner at this stage and should not be granted bail till at least completion of the investigation and submission of charge sheet. For the stage of investigation, this Court finds force in the submission of Sri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation that the investigation might be affected for the release of the petitioner at this stage and should not be granted bail till at least completion of the investigation and submission of charge sheet. For the condition of the petitioner as per the team of Doctor's update report, for the standard of treatment, the petitioner is being provided, the stage of investigation, the period of detention involving the petitioner and the gravity of offences involved herein does not make out a case for grant of bail at this stage. Further, at this stage, from the whole gamut of the game and the cases involving Seashore Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited as well as other similar companies in the other States as indicated hereinabove, this Court finds almost last one decade, the Country has been seeing an alarming rise in white collar crimes effecting the fibre of the country's economic structure. Deciding such matters, in the case of State of Gujurat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987)2 SCC 364 , in paragraph 6 the Hon'ble Apex Court made the following observation. "5.... The entire country is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community van be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest." In another case, in the case of Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 466 , the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 22 taking into consideration the involvement of a sitting Minister had nexus with the transaction involved therein observed that through the appellant therein is in custody for nearly 11 months, at the same time, the claim of the premier investigation agency cannot be underestimated. In deciding the case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has made a clear direction observing that while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the public/State and other similar consideration. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of " the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. 9. For the narrations made hereinabove, the observations, the materials so far reveal in the investigation process and further considering that the investigation is not yet completed and require some more time looking to the length and breadth of the investigation involving a large scale financial irregularity against the Sea-Shore Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited, it is not expected at this stage to have the evidence establishing the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 10. Considering the request for grant of bail on the health state of the petitioner, this Court finds the petitioner is being provided with the treatment in the best hospital of the State and taken care of by a team treatment in the best hospital of the State and taken care of by a team of Doctors highly experienced while remaining in the custody of the judiciary and there is no allegation so far that there is no allegation so far that there is any lapse in the treatment as on date. It is under the circumstances, this Court is not satisfied with grounds for bail on health state of the petitioner also. Looking to the allegation of the C.B.I. counsel that petitioner is in fact not that serious requiring his treatment in the prime hospital of the State and being an influential politician is managing reports to remain in hospital in an attempt to avoid stationing in jail, this Court observes in such event it will be open to the C.B.I. to approach the competent Court for necessary direction. 11. 11. Considering the claim of Sri Parija, learned senior counsel for grant of bail on the premises of release of Pravat Kumar Dash, one of the main assailant involving the main proceeding by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court on perusal of the copy of the order being produced by Sri Parija, learned senior counsel, finds for the investigation being not completed in spite of lapse of a long period and the period of custody of the assailant for more than two and half years, Prashant Dash was granted bail which is not the situation involved herein. 12. As a consequence, this Court taking note of all the above aspects, the position of law in the matter of grant of bail involving economy offence at the cost of the poors, for being involvement of a person none else than a Member of Legislative Assembly treated to be the guardian of the voters, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case and also merit of the claim of the Central Bureau of Investigation at this stage, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner does not deserve bail at this stage. While parting away with the case with an order of rejection of the bail application, this Court directs the Central Bureau of Investigation to complete as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months hence. After the charge sheet is submitted, the petitioner will be free to renew his prayer for bail before the Trial Court and in such event the bail application shall be considered by the Trial Court on its own merit and without being influenced with the observations made hereinabove. 13. The BLAPL stands rejected.