Orissa High Court
Rashmita Patra vs State Of Odisha & Another on 14 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No. 174 of 2022
Rashmita Patra .... Appellant
Mr.A.K. Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Respondents
Mr.J.P. Patra,
Special Counsel (OPID)
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 14.03.2022
02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Video Conferencing/Physical Mode).
Heard Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. J.P. Patra, learned Special Counsel appearing for
the State of Odisha in OPID Act matters.
This appeal has been filed under section 13 of the
Odisha Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial
Establishments) Act, 2011 (hereafter, 'OPID Act')
challenging the order dated 04.01.2022 passed by the
Learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under OPID
Act, Cuttack (hereafter 'Designated Court') in C.T. Case
No. 14 of 2018.
// 2 //
Application was filed by the appellant Rashmita Patra
and others in the Designated Court to transfer the case to
the appropriate Court having jurisdiction to try the
matter, i.e. S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. Contentions were
raised therein that the appellant Rashmita Patra
challenging the criminal proceeding vide C.T. Case No. 14
of 2018 in which charge sheet has been submitted for
offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 467, 468,
471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 6
of the OPID Act filed an application under section 482 of
Cr.P.C. before this Court vide CRLMC No. 1296 of 2021
and this Court vide judgment and order dated 24.09.2021
has held that the prosecution under section 6 of the OPID
Act is not made out against the appellant, though
confirmed the prosecution of the appellant under sections
420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code
and since all those offences are Magistrate triable
offences, it should not be tried before the Designated
Court rather it should be tried before the learned
S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. The learned Presiding Officer,
Designated Court considering the application filed by the
appellant has been pleased to hold that it has got no
jurisdiction to transfer the case to another criminal Court
of another Sessions Division in another District.
Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that since the offence under section 6 of the
// 3 //
OPID Act is not there now against the appellant in view of
the judgment dated 24.09.2021 passed by this Court in
CRLMC No. 1296 of 2021 and the Presiding Officer,
Designated Court has rejected the application filed by the
appellant and others solely on the ground that it lacks
jurisdiction to transfer the case, this Court may transfer
the case of the appellant to the Court of learned S.D.J.M.,
Bhubaneswar in the interest of justice as all the offences
for which the appellant will now face trial are triable by
Magistrate. Learned counsel tried to impress upon this
Court that in view of the judgment passed by this Court in
CRLMC No. 1296 of 2021, the charge under section 6 of
the OPID Act cannot be sustained against any other co-
accused persons also and therefore, the impugned order
passed by the Designated Court should be set aside and
C.T. Case No. 14 of 2018 be transferred to the Court of
learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar.
Mr. J.P. Patra, learned Special Counsel appearing for
the State of Odisha in OPID Act matters on the other hand
argued submitted that there are other co-accused persons
like Prasanna Kumar Patra, the husband of the petitioner
and Soumendra Narayan Dalabehera etc. who are facing
trial in the Designated Court, inter alia, for offence
punishable under section 6 of the OPID Act. Since offence
under section 6 of the OPID Act is exclusively triable by
the Designated Court and such Court can also try
// 4 //
Magistrate triable offences in view of section 8 of the
OPID Act and the offences alleged against the appellant
so also the co-accused persons were committed in the
course of the same transaction, therefore, the appellant
should face the trial before the learned Designated Court
along with the co-accused persons. It is further argued
that the appellant is trying tricks to get the case off the
Designated Court, therefore, the appeal should be
dismissed.
Section 8 of the OPID Act states that the Designated
Court while trying an offence under section 6 of the OPID
Act, may also try any offence with which the accused
may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, be
charged at the same trial. Section 15(2) of the OPID Act
states that the provisions of Cr.P.C. shall, so far as may
be, apply to the proceedings before a Designated Court
and for the purposes of the said provisions, a Designated
Court shall be deemed to be a Magistrate. Section 223(d)
of Cr.P.C. states that the persons accused of different
offences committed in the course of the same transaction
may be charged and tried together.
In the case in hand, charge sheet has been
submitted not only against the appellant, but also against
other co-accused persons, like Prasanna Kumar Patra,
Soumendra Narayan Dalabehera and M/s.Z Infra Ltd.,
formerly known as M/s.Z-Infra Construction Pvt. Ltd.
// 5 //
represented through its Managing Director Prasanna
Kumar Patra under sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471,
120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 6 of the
OPID Act. It is also not in dispute that this Court in
CRLMC No.1296 of 2021 filed by the appellant, while not
deeming it appropriate to interfere with the proceeding so
far as the offences under sections 420, 406, 467, 468,
471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, clarified that the
trial Court shall proceed with a fair trial uninfluenced by
any of the observations made in the said order. It is also
not in dispute that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
directed the learned trial Court to complete the trial within
a period of six months from 15.12.2021 in Special Leave
to Appeal (Criminal) No. 8858 of 2021. It is also not in
dispute that after framing of charge, three witnesses have
already been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
It is not in dispute that the application filed by
Prasanna Kumar Patra, the co-accused seeking to quash
the proceeding in C.T. Case No. 14 of 2018 pending in the
Court of learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under
OPID Act, Cuttack has been dismissed by this Court in
CRLMC No. 2781 of 2019 as per order dated 20.01.2021.
It is also not in dispute that the appellant and her
husband co-accused Prasanna Kumar Patra moved this
Court challenging the rejection order of discharge petition
by the learned Designated Court from the commission of
// 6 //
offences under sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471/120-B of
the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the OPID Act in
CRLA No. 32 of 2020 and this Court vide judgment dated
29.06.2020 dismissed the appeal being devoid of merit.
The submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellant that in view of the judgment and order dated
24.09.2021 passed in CRLMC No.1296 of 2021, charge
under section 6 of the OPID Act cannot be sustained
against any other co-accused persons, is not acceptable
as only the appellant has challenged the proceeding in the
said CRLMC before this Court under section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and not the other co-accused
persons.
Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the respective parties and in view of the
present scenario, since the Designated Court under the
OPID Act does not lack jurisdiction to try the offences
under which charges have been framed against the
appellant Rashmita Patra and since the offences alleged
against the co-accused persons so also against the
appellant were committed in the course of the same
transaction, in the interest of justice, they should be tried
jointly in view of section 223(d) of Cr.P.C. Moreover, the
trial has already commenced and some witnesses have
already been examined and there is specific direction of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court to conclude the proceeding
// 7 //
within a specified time period. Therefore, I am not
inclined to accept the prayer made in the appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit, stands
dismissed.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
PKSahoo
