M/S. L and T Finance Ltd., Keonjhar Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the impugned order dated 03.03.2025.

¶16

The present application has been filed at the instance of the Petitioner under section 528 of BNSS thereby invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua in Criminal Revision No.14 of 2024.

¶17

Vide order dated 03.03.2025, learned Additional

¶18

Page 1 of 5.

¶19

Sessions Judge, Champua has confirmed the order dated 10.03.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Champua in C.M.C.No.41 of 2024.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that initially an F.I.R. was lodged at the instance of the Branch Manager of a company alleging misappropriation of company money by the accused. On the basis of the aforesaid information Champua P.S.Case No.106 of 2024 was registered. In course of investigation as sum of Rs.898,500/- has been seized from the possession of the accused.

¶21

While this was the position, an application was filed before the learned S.D.J.M., Champua bearing CMC No.41 of 2024 with a prayer to release the seized cash amount of Rs.88,500/- in favour of the company. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this stage contended that the money belongs to the company which has been recovered from the possession of the Petitioner.

¶22

Learned S.D.J.M., Champua vide order dated 20.11.2024 under Annexure-3 rejected the application filed by the Petitioner under section 457 Cr.P.C.. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua by filing Crl.Revision No.14 of 2024. Learned revisional court vide order dated 03.03.2025 rejected the prayer of the Petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Champua. Being aggrieved by such revisional order, the Petitioner has

¶23

Page 2 of 5.

¶24

approached this Court by filling the present CRLMC application under section 528 of BNSS, 2023.

¶25

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the F.I.R. was lodged by the Branch Manager of a Company alleging misappropriation of money by the accused, who was working with the Petitioner’s company. He further referred to the seizure memo under Annexure-2 to the Application wherein it has been recorded that the accused has confessed before the Police that the money that was seized from his possession is the money which he has collected on behalf of the company. In the aforesaid factual background, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the aforesaid money has been seized by the Investigating Agency belongs to the Petitioner company. He further contended that the Petitioner’s company is ready and willing to secure the money in the event the same is released in favour of the Petitioner company. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the impugned order under Annexures-1 & 3 be quashed.

¶26

Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that the order passed by the revisional court is a reasoned order and therefore the same does not call for any interference. She further contended that the Petitioner’s company failed to prove the ownership over the seized cash. It was also contended that as per the F.I.R. the money which was collected does not belong to the Petitioner. As such the Petitioner is not entitled to get

¶27

Page 3 of 5.

¶28

the seized money. On such ground, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. Therefore, there is no scope to interfere with the said order on an application under section 528 BNSS 2023.

¶29

Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties, on careful examination of the background facts and further on close scrutiny of the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Champua as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua dated 03.03.2025, this Court found that the Petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of his application under section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of seized cash has approached this Court by filing the present application. It is further observed that there is no dispute that the aforesaid amount of Rs.88,500/- was seized from the possession of the accused who was an employee of the Petitioner’s company. Furthermore, on a careful reading of the F.I.R., it is observed that the Branch Manager of the company lodged the F.I.R. alleging misappropriation of the company money by the accused. Moreover, the seizure memo reveals that the accused confessed before the Police that the money which he has collected was on behalf of the company and from the general public. In such view, this Court is of the view that the same can be adjudicated by the trial court.

¶30

Taking into consideration the fact that a sum of Rs.88,500/- in cash has been sized, this Court is of the view that it is not safe to keep the same in judicial custody.

¶31

Page 4 of 5.

¶32

Moreover, there is prima facie evidence that the accused has misappropriated the company money. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer of the Petitioner to the extent that the seized money shall be released in favour of the Petitioner-company subject to the Petitioner-company securing the entire amount in the shape of bank guarantee and such bank guarantee shall be subject to further order to be passed by the learned trial court. In view of the aforesaid direction, the impugned order under Annexure-1 is hereby set aside. Accordingly, CRLMC is allowed subject to the observation made herein above.

¶33

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

¶34

RKS

¶35

Signature Not Verified Page 5 of 5.

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 07-Aug-2025 18:03:45

M/S. L and T Finance Ltd., Keonjhar v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. L and T Finance Ltd., Keonjhar v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Orissa Vs Sk.Sarifuddin Ahamed

State of Orissa Vs Sk.Sarifuddin Ahamed

State of Orissa Vs Sk.Sarifuddin Ahamed

Sashi Bhusan Barik Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Sadhu Charan Parida Vs State of Odisha

Sashikanta Das Vs State of Odisha