(SMT.) SHANTIPRABHA DASH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 Sectiqn 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. 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.