Allowed

Mohan Charan Dhir v. State of Odisha(Vig.)

Orissa HC22 Apr 2019ABLAPL/2201/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted pre-arrest bail to the appellant, a Managing Director accused of forging accounts to defraud the government. The Bail was granted conditionally, requiring property security to ensure the recovery of the alleged misappropriated amount if the special audit report substantiates excess expenditure.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail allowed subject to furnishing adequate property security for recovery of the alleged misappropriated amount.

Mohan Charan Dhir Vs State of Odisha(Vig.) — Corruption | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

ABLAPL No.2201 of 2019

¶2

04. 22.04.2019

¶3

The petitioner in this case having been implicated in Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No.61 of 2018 corresponding to Vigilance G.R. Case No.45 of 2018, pending in court of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Jeypore for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c)(d) of the P.C. Act and Sections 409 and 120-B of I.P.C., has filed this petition for his release on pre-arrest bail.

¶4

The materials available on record would go to show that the petitioner while working as the Managing Director of the K. Singipur LAMPCS during the paddy procurement financial year 2012-13, 2013-14 and 201415 stated to have shown expenditure of more than the amount permissible, in meeting the Mandi Labour Charges and in this way, he caused loss to the Government Exchequer amounting to Rs.5,72,347/-. The same stated to have been done in connivance with the DRCS, Jeypore and the excess amount is stated to have been misappropriated.

¶5

Hence, the aforesaid case having been registered against the petitioner for the offences alleged, he has filed this petition for his release on pre-arrest bail as he apprehends his arrest there in the said case.

¶6

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the earlier instruction and also with the order of the higher authority, the petitioner has paid the amount to the labourers. There is no material that the petitioner has misappropriated the aforesaid amount. The aforesaid was pointed out during the audit objection. If the petitioner at all had made some excess expenditure

¶7

¶8

Contd……… 22.04.2019

¶9

than the permissible limit, he is liable to recovery of the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act. The same invites no criminal liability. In such premises, the implication of the petitioner is without any substance. Hence, the petitioner deserves to be released on pre-arrest bail, more so when he has no chance of abscondance and/or tampering with the prosecution evidence, if released on pre-arrest bail.

¶10

Learned Addl. Standing counsel (Vigilance), however, made objection to such prayer advancing the submission that the amount has not been paid to the labourers and it was not ascertained during the audit objection, but during enquiry it was found. The petitioner along with the then DRCS, Jeypore have misappropriated the huge amount and, as such, he does not deserve to be released on pre-arrest bail. However, it is not disputed by the learned Addl. Standing counsel (Vigilance) that the entire evidence is based with regard to the payment of Mandi labour charges which are documentary in nature. So also, the labourers who stated to have not been paid the amount, are not within the control of the present petitioner, is not disputed. The name of the group of labourers who have been paid with the Mandi labour charges, has been reflected in the voucher. No material is produced before the Court that the amount was not paid to them, till date.

¶11

Considering the aforesaid facts and submissions made, especially the fact that the aforesaid misappropriation of money was pointed out during the special audit and the petitioner having no chance of

¶12

¶13

Contd……… 22.04.2019

¶14

tampering with the evidence in this case, this Court is of the view that, notwithstanding the huge amount of money alleged to have been misappropriated by the petitioner showing excess expenditure towards meeting the Mandi Labour charges than permissible, the petitioner deserves to be released on pre-arrest bail, but the same is subject to the condition that the petitioner was indicted in this case on the basis of the special audit report.

¶15

Hence, this Court directs that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case, he be released on bail by the Arresting Officer on such terms and conditions as he may deem just and proper including the condition of furnishing adequate property security for recovery of the misappropriated amount with an undertaking that in case it is found that the petitioner had made excess expenditure than the permissible limit and, as such, he is liable to refund of the same to the State, the said property security shall be appropriated towards compensating the State.

¶16

Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail stands

¶17

allowed and the ABLAPL is disposed of.

¶18

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶19

S.Pujahari, J.

¶20

MRS

¶21

Mohan Charan Dhir v. State of Odisha(Vig.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Charan Dhir v. State of Odisha(Vig.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmala Behera Vs State of Odisha

Om Prakash Gupta Vs State of Odisha

Ranjit Lima Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Tapas Samal Vs State of Odisha

Chitaranjan Das Vs State of Odisha

Chiraranjan Das Vs State of Odisha