Orissa High Court Refuses To Discharge Ex-Advocate General Ashok Mohanty In Case Linked With Artha Tatwa Scam

Pradeep Sethy, the proprietor of the Artha Tatwa group of companies allegedly duped a number of innocent investors of their money after offering them to provide higher returns in terms of interests and incentives under various schemes floated by the company and cheap flats/plots under various projects undertaken by the group.

While discarding submissions made in favour of the ex-AG, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo observed,

"…on a careful scrutiny, serious deliberations and analysis of the materials on record, it cannot be said that the accusation levelled against the petitioner by the prosecution particularly for the commission of offences under sections 120-B, 409, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code are groundless and that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioner for such offences."

Background:

The petitioner served as the Advocate General for the State of Odisha between 2009-2014. Accused Pradeep Sethy, the Chief Managing Director of the Artha Tatwa company allegedly purchased a building located at Bidanashi, Cuttack from a former Judge of the Orissa High Court for a consideration of Rs. 1 Crore. It is alleged that he used the money collected from the investors to purchase the aforesaid building. Later on, the same building was sold to Mr. Mohanty (the petitioner).

Though the sale transaction was reflected to be of Rs. 1,01,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and One Lakh), it was alleged by the prosecution that an amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs) was actually paid by the petitioner to Mr. Sethy. Hence, it was stated that he illegally misappropriated Rs. 31 Lakhs of public money.

During the time when the above transaction was made, severe protests were going on against Mr. Sethy by the depositors. Subsequently, Mr. Sethy moved the Orissa High Court for anticipatory bail. It was alleged by the prosecution that Mr. Mohanty entered into a criminal conspiracy with Mr. Sethy and ensured the grant of bail by not advancing any serious objection to the said application and not even calling for case diary.

The petitioner was charge-sheeted under Sections 120-B, 406, 409, 411, 420, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC') read with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 ('1978 Act'). Subsequently, he filed an application under Section 239, Cr.P.C. for discharge. However, the same was rejected by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar. Therefore, he impugned the aforesaid order through this revision petition.

Court's Decision:

After hearing the submissions made on behalf of the both the sides, the Court was convinced that there are prima facie materials available against the accused to proceed against him for the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B, IPC. Justice Sahoo held,

"There are important statements and material documents which were collected during course of investigation against the petitioner to substantiate criminal conspiracy aspect. There is strong suspicion founded upon such materials which lead this Court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of factual ingredients constituting such offence."

The Court further found prima facie materials on record to show the forged signatures of accused Pradeep Kumar Sethy and an advocate and even the Executive Magistrate were made in creating documents and utilised in connection with transfer of the property in the name of the petitioner. Therefore, the Court denied to discharge the petitioner under Sections 468 and 471, IPC.

After a careful examination of available materials and submissions of the parties, the Court found prima facie ground justifying the charge under Section 409, IPC. It observed,

"When being entrusted with the property or dominion over the property which was purchased by utilizing the public deposits, without receiving the full amount, accused Pradeep Kumar Sethy disposed of the property by way of sale to the petitioner for his use for alleged obvious reasons and thereby the petitioner was benefited by Rs.31 lakhs and in that process, the public money of Rs.31 lakhs was misappropriated and according to the prosecution, such thing happened on account of criminal conspiracy between the two and since the prosecution has collected materials to substantiate such conspiracy, it cannot be said there are complete absence of prima facie materials to constitute the ingredients of the offence under section 409 of I.P.C. which is the aggravated form of criminal breach of trust."

The Court, however, held that there is no material against the petitioner that such cheating to the innocent depositors/investors, made by the accused Pradeep Sethy, was actually done in connivance with the petitioner and therefore, the ingredients of offence under Section 420 of the IPC are not attracted against the petitioner.

Similarly, the Court found no prima facie material against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 411, IPC which deals with dishonestly receiving stolen money so also for the offences under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1978 Act.

Accordingly, the Bench dismissed the criminal revision petition to this effect and directed the Trial Court to expedite and conclude the trial within 'one year' from the date of framing of charges keeping in view the provision under Section 309, Cr.P.C. which provides for the proceedings in inquiry or trial to be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined.

Case Title: Asok @ Ashok Mohanty v. Republic of India

Case No.: CRLREV No. 618 of 2018

Order Dated: 26^th October 2022

Coram: S.K. Sahoo, J.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Santosh Kumar Mund, Senior Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Special Public Prosecutor (C.B.I.)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 151

Click Here To Read/Download Order