Orissa High Court
Prashanta Kumar Dash vs State Of Odisha And Others on 14 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
TRPCRL No.3 of 2023 and batch
In TRPCRL No.3 of 2023
Prashanta Kumar Dash .... Petitioner
Mr. Rajeet Roy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, A.G.A. for the State
M/s. D. Pattnaik, Advocate for O.P. Nos.2 to 4
In TRPCRL No.104 of 2022
Prashanta Kumar Dash .... Petitioner
Mr. Rajeet Roy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, A.G.A. for the State
In TRPCRL No.106 of 2022
Prashanta Kumar Dash .... Petitioner
Mr. Rajeet Roy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, A.G.A. for the State
In TRPCRL No.107 of 2022
Prashanta Kumar Dash .... Petitioner
Mr. Rajeet Roy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, A.G.A. for the State
In TRPCRL No.108 of 2022
Prashanta Kumar Dash .... Petitioner
Mr. Rajeet Roy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, A.G.A. for the State
Signature Not VerifiedTRPCRL No.3 of 2023 and batch Page 1 of 8
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-Jul-2023 15:51:16
In TRPCRL No.109 of 2022
Prashanta Kumar Dash .... Petitioner
Mr. Rajeet Roy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, A.G.A. for the State
In TRPCRL No.110 of 2022
Prashanta Kumar Dash .... Petitioner
Mr. Rajeet Roy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, A.G.A. for the State
In TRPCRL No.15 of 2023
Prashanta Kumar Dash .... Petitioner
Mr. Rajeet Roy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, A.G.A. for the State
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
ORDER
Order No. 14.07.2023
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ.
1. The Petitioner, who is the same in all these transfer petitions, is a
Director in M/s. Seashore Funds Management Private Limited, M/s.
Seashore Securities Limited and is also associated with 13
Multipurpose Cooperatives of the Seashore Group. He has filed
these petitions seeking transfer of several criminal cases pending in
the courts of the SDJM and CJM of Dhenkanal (TRPCRL No.3 of
2023); the SDJM, Rourkela (TRPCRL No.104 of 2022); the JMFC,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-Jul-2023 15:51:16
Soro, District-Balasore (TRPCRL No.106 of 2022); the CJM,
Nabarangpur (TRPCRL No.107 of 2022), the CJM, Jajpur
(TRPCRL No.108 of 2022), the ASJ-cum-CJM, Ganjam,
Berhampur (TRPCRL No.109 of 2022), the SDJM, Titilagarh,
District-Balangir (TRPCRL No.110 of 2022) and the CJM, Sonepur
(TRPCRL No.15 of 2023) to the court of the Special Judge, CBI,
Bhubaneswar, Khurda.
2. Notice was issued in all these transfer petitions and barring a few
of them, service is complete on the respective Opposite
Parties/Complainants of each of the criminal cases.
3. The background to the above prayer as explained by the
Petitioner himself is that a common allegation was made in the 19
FIRs which form subject matter of these transfer petitions and
several others registered in different Districts in the State of Odisha
against the Petitioner, his relatives and office bearers of the M/s.
Seashore Group of Companies and Cooperative Societies regarding
acceptance of moneys from various investors/depositors, which
were then not returned to them. The genesis of the present set of
cases is an order dated 9th May 2014 passed by the Supreme Court
of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No.413 of 2013, pursuant to which
FIR No.RC.49/S/2014-KOL came to be registered against the
Petitioner and others on 5th June 2014 by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI). By the same judgment, the Supreme Court of
India granted liberty to the CBI to conduct investigation in respect
of all the cases registered against the Seashore Group of Companies
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-Jul-2023 15:51:16
and also to undertake further investigation where charge sheet had
already been filed.
4. The grievance of the Petitioner was that CBI chose to take within
its ambit the investigation of only 22 of the FIRs leaving out 19
other FIRs which form subject matter of the present transfer
petitions.
5. On completion of the investigation, CBI filed a charge sheet
dated 7th March 2015 in the court of the Special CJM, CBI under
Sections 120(B), 420, 409 IPC and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize
Chits and Money Circulations Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978
(PCMCSB Act). One more FIR of B.N. Pur which is P.S. Case
No.341 of 2013 was clubbed with the above 22 FIRs. However, 19
FIRs registered in different PSs in the various Districts in Odisha
against the Petitioner and others of the Seashore Group were not
taken over by the CBI.
6. Aggrieved by this, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No.171
of 2018 in the Supreme Court of India for a direction to the CBI to
take over "investigation of the left out cases". On Petitioner's own
showing the said writ petitions were dismissed by the Supreme
Court of India on 18th January, 2019. To quote the Petitioner's own
words in para 3 (h) "As a matter of fact, the fulcrum of
investigation carried out by CBI concerns the alleged conspiracy on
the part of the Petitioner and others in duping investors of their
deposits through the ponzi firms set up by them."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-Jul-2023 15:51:16
7. Again to quote the Petitioner in para 3 (g), it is averred that
"although the allegations in the above 19 FIRs had the same
spectrum as that of the one being investigated by the CBI, the
Petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the CBI in failing to take
over the investigation of 19 nos. of the FIRs filed a Writ Petition
(Crl.) No.171 of 2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court ...."
8. In short, the case sought to be made by the Petitioner before the
Supreme Court of India was that these 19 FIRs pertained to
allegations which were no different from those in the 22 FIRs
which were taken over by the CBI for investigation.
9. Mr. Rajjeet Roy, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
relies on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Pramod
Bhaichand Raisoni v. The State of Maharashtra,
MANU/MH/0809/2019 where after discussing the provisions of
Section 177 read with the provisions contained in Chapter XVII of
the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Cr.P.C.) (in particular
Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223), the Bombay High Court directed
that the trial of the 77 cases involving similar allegations against the
Petitioners in those cases should be held in the same court of the
Special Court (MPID, Jalgaon District) as that would be convenient
not only to the prosecution, but also to the defence in those cases.
10. Mr. Roy submits that the present petitions also should therefore
be allowed by directing that the cases pending in the different
courts in the aforementioned various Districts of Odisha should all
be directed now to be transferred to and heard by the Special Judge,
CBI, Bhubaneswar, Khurda where the cases against the Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-Jul-2023 15:51:16
pertaining to the 22 FIRs taken over by the CBI for investigation is
stated to be pending.
11. Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the State on the other hand submits that
with a similar prayer already having been rejected by the Supreme
Court of India by the dismissal of writ petition filed by the
Petitioner as noted hereinbefore, this Court ought not to entertain
the present prayer as that will run contrary to the order of the
Supreme Court of India. He also refers to the decision in State of
Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad Yadav (2017) 8 SCC 1 and the decision
of this Court in Pradeep Kumar Sethy v. State of Odisha (2021)
131 CLT 770 to urge that these cases cannot be said to have arisen
out of the "same cause of action" and cannot be said to be
pertaining to the "same offence" and therefore would require an
individual trial to be held in respect of each such offence in respect
of each investor already deposited.
12. The above submissions have been considered.
13. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that the facts in Pramod
Bhaichand Raisoni (supra) did not involve the Petitioners there
first approaching the Supreme Court of India with a similar prayer
which was rejected by the Supreme Court of India. It must be noted
here that in the present case, the Petitioner appears not to have
sought to withdraw the writ petition filed by him in the Supreme
Court of India with liberty to approach the High Court for a similar
relief. This is significant because the same case that is sought to be
made out here before this Court by the Petitioner was also sought to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-Jul-2023 15:51:16
be made out before the Supreme Court of India viz,., that all the
FIRs pertain to the "same spectrum of charges" involving similar
allegations and therefore, CBI should be asked to take over even the
"left out cases" i.e the 19 FIRs. That prayer was rejected by the
Supreme Court of India. Consequently, it would not be proper for
this Court to entertain the prayer that the cases arising out of those
left out 19 FIRs should now tried by the same court of the Special
Judge, CBI, Bhubaneswar.
14. In a Special CBI court the prosecutor is the CBI. In the present
case, in regard to the left out 19 cases it is obvious that the CBI
would not be the prosecutor, but the local Police. Therefore, to ask
such cases to be transferred to the CBI Court would be
impermissible in law. It should be noted here that in Pramod
Bhaichand Raisoni (supra), the transfer was not ordered to a
Special CBI court, but a Special Court (MPID, Jalgaon) which is
very different from the prayer made in the present case.
15. Even as regards the arguments concerning 'same offence' 'same
transaction', there is merit in the contention of Mr. Katikia relying
on the observations in State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad Yadav
(supra) that have to be separate trials for each of the 'offences'
alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner and others of the
Seashore Group of Companies vis-à-vis individual depositors. It
cannot be said that all the cases constitute the 'same offence' and
part of the same "cause of action". Be that as it may, with the
Supreme Court already having rejected the prayer of the Petitioner,
it would not be permissible for this Court to allow the prayer made
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-Jul-2023 15:51:16
in these petitions as that would be permitting the Petitioner to
overcome the aforementioned order of the Supreme Court indirectly
by virtually seeking the same result viz., that all the left out cases
should be tried before the same court of the Special Judge, CBI,
Bhubaneswar.
16. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is not inclined to
accept the prayers made in the present petitions and they are
accordingly dismissed.
17. As regards the Petitioner's prayer for appearing virtually in
various courts mentioned hereinbefore, if such a request is made by
him, it would be considered by those respective courts keeping in
view that such facilities are available in the District Court
Complexes and other subordinate courts in the State of Odisha.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
S.K. Guin
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 15-Jul-2023 15:51:16
