Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 970 (ORI)

Niranjan Rana v. State of Odisha

2017-09-01

S.K.SAHOO

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. 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’) has been filed by the appellant Niranjan Rana in challenging the impugned order dated 16.01.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court, OPID Act, Cuttack in C.T. Case No.10 of 2016 in rejecting his petition under section 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-02-BV-0006 on the ground that when there is adequate provision under section 9 of the O.P.I.D. Act as to how to deal with the property that is attached or to be attached, the petition under section 457 of Cr.P.C. is premature. 2. Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Presiding Officer while rejecting the petition under section 457 of Cr.P.C. has observed in the operative portion of the order that the Government under the Finance Department had proposed to pass an ad-interim order for confiscation of the said property under section 3 of the O.P.I.D. Act and taking into account such aspect, the petition under section 457 of Cr.P.C. was held to be not maintainable. He further contended that in fact no such proposal has been submitted by the Finance Deptt. even till that today. 3. Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, learned Addl. Government Advocate has produced a letter of the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneswar dated 21.08.2017 addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneswar – Cuttack, Bhubaneswar wherein it is mentioned that the prayer of the I.O. for ad-interim attachment of properties of the appellant who is the Owner-cum-Managing Director, Maa Tarini Eastcon Pvt. Ltd., Saheednagar, Bhubaneswar may be moved to Government for attaching the properties as well as money lying in the bank accounts of Maa Tarini Eastcon Pvt. Ltd. at the earliest. 4. In view of the aforesaid letter dated 21.08.2017, it is apparent that the observation of the learned Presiding Officer in the impugned order that the Government under the Finance Deptt. had proposed to pass an ad-interim order for confiscation of the property of the appellant is erroneous in as much as the matter had not reached even the Finance Deptt. as on that day. Even on 21.08.2017, the matter has also not reached the Finance Deptt. 5. had proposed to pass an ad-interim order for confiscation of the property of the appellant is erroneous in as much as the matter had not reached even the Finance Deptt. as on that day. Even on 21.08.2017, the matter has also not reached the Finance Deptt. 5. Section 3 of the O.P.I.D., Act which deals with attachment of property of Financial Establishment on default of return of deposit of the depositors, inter alia, indicates that the Government on being satisfied that the Financial establishment is not likely to return the deposits or to make payment of interest or to provide the service, in order to protect the interest of the depositors of such Financial Establishment, ad-interim order can be passed attaching the money or other property alleged to have been procured either in the name of the Financial Establishment or in the name of any other person from and out of the deposits collected by the Financial Establishment. 6. Section 4 of the O.P.I.D. Act states about the appointment of competent authority and application to be made by the competent authority on receipt of the orders of the Government under section 3 to the Designated Court for making the ad-interim order of attachment absolute and thereafter, procedure laid down under section 9 of the O.P.I.D. Act which deals with powers of the Designated Court regarding attachment, sale etc. shall follow. 7. Therefore, the procedure under the O.P.I.D. Act, so far as attachment of the property of any Financial Establishment is concerned commences with the passing of the ad-interim order of attachment by the Government. Since that stage has not reached in the present case and even no proposal for attachment of properties has been submitted to the Government, therefore, the observation of the Presiding Officer that there are adequate provision under section 9 of the O.P.I.D. Act to deal with the property that is attached or to be attached and therefore, section 457 of Cr.P.C. petition is premature is totally misconceived. So long as after passing of the ad-interim attachment order by the Government, the competent authority has not submitted any application to the Designated Court for making the ad-interim order of attachment absolute, till that day the Designated Court constituted under section 8 of the O.P.I.D. Act can deal with petition under section 457 Cr.P.C. filed by any person for disposal of the property or for the delivery of such property to the person entitled to possession thereof in accordance with law. 8. Therefore, I am of the humble view that the impugned order passed by the learned Designated Court is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court, O.P.I.D. Act, Cuttack to deal with the 457 Cr.P.C. petition filed by the appellant on merit. The learned counsel for the appellant shall produce the certified copy of this order before the learned Designated Court on 6th of September, 2017 as in the connected Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 2017, a direction has been given to the appellant to remain present on that day before the Court for re-framing of the charge. If the certified copy of the order is produced before the concerned Court, the learned Presiding Officer shall afford opportunity to the State Counsel to file objection, if any, to the petition under section 457 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, such petition shall be disposed of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petition under section 457 of Cr.P.C. which has been filed by the appellant. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the CRLA is disposed of. 11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. 12. A free copy of the order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State.