Seashore Chit Fund Scam: Orissa High Court Declines To Quash Proceedings Against Ex-MP Rabindra Jena

While denying relief to the ex-parliamentarian, the Single Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray said:

“It is not that the money was received through the companies owned by the Petitioner, but by him personally. So, the otherwise inference is that he must have a close nexus with Prashant Kumar Dash, the principal accused. If the relationship is not purely business or official, then it must be for any suspicious purpose and this needs to be examined in course of trial.”

Factual Background

Jena and Prashant Kumar Dash, the principal accused in Seashore chit-fund scam, are alleged to have hatched a conspiracy along with others for luring the general public to make deposits with Seashore group, which promised higher interests and multiple other benefits in return.

A sum of Rs.1.75 Crores was allegedly diverted to the petitioner in 2011 illegally out of the money received through such public deposits by the principal accused and Seashore Group of Companies. The petitioner was never a member of Cooperatives of Seashore Group of Companies at any point of time. Therefore, such transfer of funds in favour of the petitioner is said to be in violation of the Odisha Self-help Cooperative Act, 2001 and against the Memorandum of Associations.

The CBI has further alleged that amount was paid to the petitioner for extending local support for unhindered running of illegal business of Money Circulation Schemes of Seashore Group. 

Contentions of Parties

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that no offence can be made out against the petitioner since no material is there to reveal how and when local support was garnered by the petitioner and no assertion is there about the meeting of minds or agreement between the petitioner and Prashant Kumar Dash to commit such illegal act of collection of deposits from public.

It was further submitted that the subsequent charge-sheet submitted against the petitioner is a ‘desperate attempt’ to malign him for political purpose. It was argued that when he has been dropped from the preliminary chargesheet, the attempt of prosecution to prosecute him for rest of offences with the aid of criminal conspiracy is baseless.

On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the CBI that the petitioner hatched a criminal conspiracy with Prashant Kumar Dash to receive Rs.1.75 crores in his personal savings bank account from Seashore Group of Companies, out of the public deposits collected unauthorizedly and illegally, for local support and unhindered running of illegal money circulation schemes in Balasore area.

It was also submitted that the petitioner is an influential person in Balasore. It was contended that even if it is accepted that he did not hold any political position at the relevant point of time, the same does not indicate that he did not have any influence on local public in Balasore as he belongs to the family of a former Speaker of Odisha Legislative Assembly.

Ruling

The Court noted that the receipt of an amount to the tune of Rs.1.75 crores by the petitioner from Seashore Group of Companies is not disputed. It also took note of the contention that a sum of Rs.1.855 Crores were given back against such loan amounts to different companies of Seashore Group.

"This contention of the Petitioner of course requires a thorough examination in course of the trial. Because, repayment of such amount as contended by the Petitioner are not that clear through materials collected during investigation," said the court.

The court also observed that the petitioner did not explain what relationship he had with Prashant Kumar Dash or his Group of Companies that prompted Seashore Group of Companies to give such huge amount of loan to the Petitioner personally. 

“…if he has a close nexus with Prashant Kumar Dash for which such a huge amount has been given to him by Prashant Kumar Dash through his companies, which still remains unexplained, then the presumption would be that it is for the illegal money circulation business in Balasore area.”

The court said when a prima facie case is found made out against the petitioner, it does not see any reason in favour of the petitioner "to warrant interference for quashing of the criminal proceeding or the charge-sheet submitted by the prosecution.”

Case Title: Rabindra Kumar Jena v. Republic of India (CBI)

Case No.: CRLMC No. 1887 of 2022

Judgment Dated: 6^th February 2023

Coram: B.P. Routray, J.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Aman Lekhi, Senior Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. S. Nayak, Advocate for the CBI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 17