Dismissed

Pramoda Kumar Dash v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC19 Mar 2021ABLAPL/16221/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed eight applications for anticipatory bail filed against officials of a cooperative credit society accused of financial irregularities. Despite allegations of no involvement, the Judge held that the serious nature of the scam threatened farmers' interests, necessitating an unrestricted investigation and precluding bail which would hamper it.

What did the court decide?

Applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC against all eight petitioners were dismissed.

Pramoda Kumar Dash Vs State of Odisha — Corruption | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

ABLAPL NO.16221 OF 2020

¶2

(I) ABLAPL NO.16221 OF 2020, (II) ABLAPL NO. 16303 OF 2020, (III) ABLAPL NO. 16318 OF 2020, (IV) ABLAPL NO. 16378 OF 2020, (V) ABLAPL NO. 16383, OF 2020, (VI) ABLAPL NO. 61 OF 2021, (VII) ABLAPL NO. 176 OF 2021

¶3

& (VIII)ABLAPL NO. 256 OF 2021.

¶4

19.03.2021: The matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical) mode.

¶5

The above eight numbers of applications under section438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) arise out of Gurudijhatia P.S. Case No.148 of 2020 which correspond to C.T. Case No.584 of 2020 of the court of learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh registered for commission of offence under section-409/419/420/467/468/470/471/34 of the IPC.

¶6

All these Petitioners apprehending their arrest in the above noted case have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶7

The First Information Report (F.I.R.) dated 16.12.2020 has been lodged by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies (DRCS), Cuttack Division. On receipt of the said F.I.R. and based upon that, the IIC, Gurudijhatia Police Station has registered the Case on 18.12.2020 and taken up the investigation as to the allegations made therein.

¶8

Learned counsels for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State were heard on 09.03.2021. As prayed for and

¶9

// 2 //

¶10

allowed, they have also filed the short written notes of submission on 15.03.2020. Those having been received in respect of the ABLAPLs under Item Nos.(I), (II), (IV), (V) and (VI) are taken on record.

¶11

Keeping in view the submissions made, I have perused the materials as placed.

¶12

The matter giving rise to the registration of the criminal case for the offences as indicated above concerns with the financial irregularities and misappropriation of funds in Gurudijhatia Service Cooperative Society Ltd. (SCS) routed through the Cuttack Credit Cooperative Bank through its concerned Branches in the area.

¶13

On receipt of various allegations from the members of the said SCS as to financial irregularities, misappropriation of huge funds, cheating the members etc. and swindling the funds meant for them, in various designed ways, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS) Odisha vide his letter dated 12.03.2020 directed for an enquiry into all those affairs of the SCS as well as the Banks for the period from the year 2015-16 to 07.03.2020. It may be stated that the elected Board of Management had been dissolved prior to that holding of enquiry and as per order of RCS dated 04.02.2020, one Sri Hadibandhu Rana, Chief Executive Officer of Athagarh Block has been in the charge of Management of said SCS as Administrator.

¶14

// 3 //

¶15

For the enquiry, a Committee was constituted and it was headed by the DRCS (Informant). Two authorized officers of RCS, one Auditor and few other officials in total numbering eight were also the members of that enquiry committee.

¶16

The positions of these Petitioners in the said CCCB are given hereunder:-

¶17

Petitioner of Item No.I, : Branch Manager of Athagarh (Pramod Kumar Dash) as well as Branch Manager (I/C) of Choudwar Branch of Central Credit Co-operative Bank Ltd. (CCCB) for the entire period.

¶18

Petitioner of Item No.II, : Assistant Manager-cum(Babaji Charan Pradhan) Cashier of Athagarh Branch of CCCB.

¶19

Petitioner of Item No.III, : Assistant Manager-cum-Legal (Chitananda Jena) Clerk of Athagarh Branch of CCCB.

¶20

Petitioner of Item No.IV, : Secretary of CCCB from (Bijaya Kumar Das) 15.08.2017 onwards.

¶21

Petitioner of Item No.V, : Banking Assistant-cum(Niranjan Parida) Supervisor, Athagarh Branch of CCCB.

¶22

Petitioner of Item No.VI, : Assistant Manager-cum(Nalinikanta Acharya) Accountant (I/C) of Athagarh

¶23

// 4 //

¶24

Branch of CCCB.

¶25

Petitioner of Item No.VII (Prabodha Ranjan Parida) Petitioner of ItemNo.VIII (Ratnakar Patra)

¶26

: Peon of the CCCB. : President of the CCCB from 2015 onwards.

¶27

The Society is a Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society and it finances mainly the agricultural loans to its members according to land holding and scale of finance in their favour. The loans are for paddy cultivation in the area in khariff season as well as other crops in Rabi season.

¶28

In the enquiry, on examination of the relevant records of the SCS and Bank, it has been found that:-

¶29

(i) Although a sum of Rs.37,13,530/and Rs.50,98,920/- have been financed by the Athgarh Branch of CCCB in favour of 55 and 71 nos. of farmers respectively at Gurudijhatia SCS from that a sum of Rs.7,47,450/- has been deducted towards share and insurance premium but has not been accounted for at the Society level;

¶30

(ii) Some loanees have presented KCC cheque individually for availing ST crop loans from the Bank, but the same have not been credited in their SB accounts and that has been credited to the SDB accounts of other persons who are total strangers

¶31

// 5 //

¶32

to the loans and subsequently the amount has been withdrawn; and thus misappropriated;

¶33

(iii) The Bank has allowed bearer cheques of SBD withdrawal worth of Rs.45,10,000/- on different dates of 71 beneficiaries but then the Peon of this Society who is the Petitioner of Item No.VII has been allowed to withdraw the loan amount of the members.

¶34

(iv) Huge amount of loans have been granted on one day without following the procedures, guidelines and norms and it stands at Rs.88,12,450/- in favour of 126 loanees without maintaining shadow ledger at Branch Bank level as well as not recording in the Books and Accounts of the Society; there has also been the misappropriation of Paddy Commission withdrawn from SBD accounts.

¶35

Besides the above, on enquiry into the allegations of individual loanees, the Committee has found out that the money meant for them has been siphoned away in unauthorized and illegal ways.

¶36

The details of the above being reflected in the enquiry report, the same has formed part of the F.I.R.

¶37

// 6 //

¶38

In course of hearing as also in the respective written notes, each of the Petitioner has submitted to have played absolutely no role in any of these matters and every Petitioner have attempted to shift the blame to others by feigning their ignorance.

¶39

As to the misappropriation of the KCC Loans advanced to 126 loanees in a single day to the tune of Rs.88,12,450/-, Petitioners under Item Nos.(I), (II), (III), (IV), (V) and (VI) are said to have played definite role. Similarly as to the misappropriation of Paddy Commission of Rs.18,710/-, dubious roles are attributed to the Petitioners under Item Nos. (I), (IV), (VI) & (VIII).

¶40

The total amount alleged to have been misappropriated has so far been computed at Rs.1,09,50,290/-. All these Petitioners have definite role in these matters right from the time of entertainment of the applications as to observance of procedure and formalities till sanction and disbursement. In view of above report of the Committee, detail investigation into the allegations in the facts and circumstances stand as the necessity that to with specific reference to voluminous documents prepared by the Petitioners to see as to if those are as per their duly assigned role in the matter or in gross violation of the same giving rise to the inference as to their involvement for the purpose. The need of custodial interrogations of all the Petitioners at this stage cannot be

¶41

// 7 //

¶42

altogether ruled out for which the Investigating Officer has to be given a free hand.

¶43

Considering the area of activities of the Society and the Bank, the quantum of misappropriation as alleged appears to be quite high. Having regard to the serious nature of allegations, the role of each of the Petitioners as reported and the stage of investigation, here is a case where it is felt that the investigating agency has to be given sufficient freedom in the process of investigation of the case. The facts as alleged show that it is a scam where large number of farmers have been cheated and the money meant for their assistance and their economic growth has been squandered away by the persons having the responsibility in handling the affairs.

¶44

In view of all the above; this Court is of the view that grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners would hamper the investigation and therefore it is not a fit case for exercise of the discretion in that regard.

¶45

Accordingly, all the ABLAPLs are dismissed.

¶46

It is however observed that when the matter of consideration of regular bail of the Petitioners would so arise, the same shall be considered on their own merit and in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observation made in this order.

¶47

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶48

…………………….. D. Dash, J.

¶49

Narayan

Pramoda Kumar Dash v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramoda Kumar Dash v. State of Odisha

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

Nageswar Prasad Sa Vs the Executive Officer, Bargarh

Sadhu Charan Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Manjulata Dehuri Vs State of Odisha

Gita Mishra Vs Premananda Mishra

Subash Chandra Gouda Vs State of Odisha

Prahalad Behera Vs the Tahasildar, Bonth