ARADHANA BISOYI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE both the bail applications arise out of one case and they were heard together, a common order is passed.2 These two bail applications have been filed under section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre -arrest bail in connection with Purushottampur P.S. Case No. 59 of 2014 registered under sections 420/120 -B I.P.C. which corresponds to G.R. Case No.58 of 2014 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Purushottampur.

(2.) ON 13.4.2014 an F.I.R. was presented by one Sunil Kumar Basantia, son of late Sambaru Basantia of village -Sunathara, P.S. -Purushottampur, Dist -Ganjam before Inspector -in -Charge, Purushottampur Police Station alleging therein that the petitioners are the Managing Director and Directors of the company. In the year 2009 there was an agreement between petitioners Smt. Anita Nayak and Aradhana Bisoyi with the informant regarding purchase of his four acres of land of the3 informant situated in Mouza Nimapalli by the company. The land was registered on 24.12.2009 at a consideration amount of Rs.45 lakhs as per the direction of petitioners Dillip Kumar Sahoo and Dhabaleswar Nayak but only Rs.2 lakhs was given to the informant. As the informant was ill, he executed a Power of Attorney in favour of his son Santosh Kumar Basantia to execute the sale deed on his behalf. It is stated that the petitioners conspired between themselves and allured the son of the informant and executed the sale deed. The petitioners assured the informant to pay the balance amount after receipt of the financial aid from the Government of India. In this process though three years passed but the petitioners did not take any steps to pay the balance consideration amount and ultimately told the informant that since he had already executed the registered sale deed, he would not get any more money. The informant was also threatened with the help of the antisocials not to ask for any money. The informant subsequently enquired into the matter and came to know that the petitioners have received the amount from the Government of India and by depositing six numbers of bearer cheques in the Bank of Baroda, Old Bus Stand, Berhampur for an amount of Rs.19.72 lakhs and by forging the signatures of the informant, they have4 misappropriated the amount. The informant came to know about the misappropriation on 14.11.2013 through RTI Act. Accordingly, he lodged the FIR to recover the balance of the consideration amount of Rs.43 lakhs from the petitioners who have cheated him and misappropriated his entitlement money from the Bank by forging his signatures.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. J.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate submitted that the company was registered under Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Ajodhya Nagar, 2nd Line, Berhampur in the district of Ganjam and the company was constituted in the year 2009. He further submitted that the Company was included under Central Sector Scheme for development of common facilities for AY USH Industries Clusters notified by the Government of India through its Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and one of the principal components of the Central Sector Scheme is the nonrecurring grant -in -aid in favour of the Company against the approved components of the projects viz., land development cost, physical infrastructure, common facility centers including plant and machinery etc. subject to the terms and conditions imposed upon as per guidelines of the Central Sector Scheme for the development of common facilities for AY USH Industry5 Cluster approved by Government of India and further subject to the provisions contained in the General Financial Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there was absolutely no misrepresentation or cheating to the informant by any of the petitioners in any manner and this case is nothing but a result of misunderstanding and difference of opinion between the informant and his son Santosh Kumar Basantia who are the principal and power of attorney holder respectively. He further submitted that sale deed in respect of four acres of land was duly executed by the informant through his son who was his power of attorney holder in one part and purchaser company on the other. He further submitted that if there was any discrepancy over the financial transactions made in favour of the informant through his son, the matter rests solely on the question of ratification between the father and the son. Since the purchaser company has paid full consideration amount as on record of evidence revealed from recital of the sale deed dated 24.12.2009, which is a registered document as well as supportive ledger entries made in the statement of accounts maintained in the Bank of Baroda, Berhampur Main Branch covering the period from 19.8.2009 to 31.12.2010 showing payments and encashment made by the informant6 through several cheques, the ingredients of offence under section 420 IPC is not attracted. He further submitted that the wife of the informant namely Nalini Kumar Basantia had filed a civil suit bearing C.S. No.78 of 2013 pending in the court Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Berhampur raising a money claim of Rs. 10 lakhs only against the petitioners and others in the pretext of having lending such money by her in favour of the company for purchase of the cluster land belonging to her and the informant. The learned counsel further submitted that the dispute appears to be civil in nature and since there is no chance of absconding or tampering with the evidence and the petitioners are the respectable citizens, they will be harassed and humiliated in the event of their arrest and therefore the application for anticipatory bail may be favourably considered.