TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 1409
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s for the members of the ex-serviceman and serviceman at the cost to be paid by the members. It is further case of the prosecution that SWO prepared a scheme for allotment of plots in the name and style of "Defence Intercity Vatika, Bhubaneswar" for Rs.35 crores in toto approximately. The petitioner's SWO-India made agreement with M/s. Brookson Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar of which co-accused Purna Chandra Panda is the Managing Director to arrange plots at mouza Giringaput, P.S. Chandaka, Bhubaneswar, District-Khurda and develop same for their allotment to the ex-serviceman and serviceman. The petitioner through website made advertisement about details of the application for plots and allotment procedure including necessary money to be deposited for allotment of such plots for residential purpose. The informant along with 541 ex-servicemen and servicemen being lured by the advertisement applied for plots and accordingly SWO collected Rs.29 crores from the applicants. 3. It is the further case of the prosecution that the petitioner being the Chairman of the SWO paid Rs.19 crores to the co-accused Purna Chandra Panda. Then accordingly the applicants were asked to keep in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o any criminal intent or criminal misconduct has been illegally detained in custody. When the principal co-accused Purna Chandra Panda has been released on bail, the case of the present petitioner being kept at par, should be also released on bail. According to him the entire case of prosecution if analysed properly would only bring about civil liability but not the criminal liability. The prosecution has not been able to show any conspiracy between the present petitioner and the co-accused Purna Chandra Panda who failed to provide the plots to the investors. He further submitted since charge-sheet has been submitted, there is no reason to detain the petitioner in custody. Finally, he submitted that the petitioner has already paid Rs.19 crores to Purna Chandra Panda and further amount would be paid by him if he is released on bail. In support of his contention he cited the decisions, reported in (2016) 1 SCC 348:International Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) and Ors. V. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd. And Ors.; (2000) 4 SCC 168: Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others v. State of Bihar and another; (2012) 1 SCC 40: Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st the present petitioner in criminal cases filed in the State of Jharkhand and Bihar. He submitted that in the economic offence the Court should take serious view while dealing with the bail of the accused. He further submitted that every allegation although seems to be civil in nature but has got also criminal liability if it is unveiled. According to him in the instant case the nature of the case clearly shows the criminal intent of the petitioner to cheat, to commit criminal breach of trust and conspiracy along with other offences. In support of his submissions he cited the decision reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439; Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation: (2013) 7 SCC 452; CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy: (2013) 7 SCC 466; Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI: (2013) 2 SCC 801; Arun Bhandari v. State of U.P.: 2013 (II) OLR 519; Dr. Tirupati Panigrahi v. State of Orissa: (2015) 61 OCR 131; Preeti Bhatia v. ROI. DISCUSSIONS 9. From the copy of website it appears that SWO-India had floated the plotted Scheme for dwelling units/flats/plots for the members of the ex-serviceman/serviceman. There are general rules, terms and conditions, allotment procedure, loan facility, refund/wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther persons whose statements are available on record show that they being retired and serving employees invested money with SWO-India for purchasing plots but neither the present petitioner nor its organization gave delivery of possession and co-accused Purna Chandra Panda who has been entrusted to execute the sale deed on behalf of the SWO-India and develop plots has not performed his duty. On the other hand, all these investors have clearly stated that no delivery of possession has been made and some lands have been sold without having any specific demarcation of the plots. 3666.75 decimals of land was purchased by co-accused Purna Chandra Panda for the project but he sold 5502.25 decimals to the investors in excess of 1835.5 decimals of land. 12. The statement of Amin of BDA as revealed from Case Diary shows that in most of the cases the revenue plots purchased by co-accused Purna Chandra Panda and this SWO-India led by present petitioner are not contiguous as per revenue map whereas plotted schemes prepared for the project is shown to be contiguous and some roads are also shown over non-recorded areas. The sale deeds seized do not disclose as to boundary of land sold and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re not used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same time, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes. (See G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.; (2000) 2 SCC 636: and Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd.; (2006) 6 SCC 736. Xxx xxx xxx 29. We have referred to the aforesaid decisions in the field to highlight about the role of the Court while dealing with such issues. In our considered opinion the present case falls in the category which cannot be stated at this stage to be purely civil in nature on the basis of the admitted documents or the allegations made in the FIR or what has come out in the investigation or for that matter what has been stated in the protest petition. We are disposed to think that prima facie there is allegation that there was a guilty intention to induce the complainant to part with money. We may hasten to clarify that it is not a case where a promise initially made could not lived up to subsequently. It is not a case where it could be s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inciple to the present case, it appears that handing over of money of Rs.19 crores to co-accused Purna Chandra Panda by the present petitioner does not absolve his responsibility. It also appears from the Case Diary that Purna Chandra Panda has refused to take up the responsibility because he has not got further sum of Rs.6 crores from the present petitioner. Of course Purna Chandra Panda is on conditional bail but the Case Diary shows that he has also failed to perform his part of contract. Since the present petitioner is the person to have floated the plotted scheme and received the money, he cannot be taken at par with Purna Chandra Panda who has allegedly executed the agreement with SWO-India. Also petitioner has taken plea that he has filed consumer complaint against co-accused Purna Chandra Panda before the National Commission which has nothing to do with offences for which petitioner is prosecuted. Be that as it may, the case of the present petitioner cannot be at par with the case of co-accused Purna Chandra Panda. 19. It is reported in (2000) 4 SCC 168; Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others v. State of Bihar and another where Their Lordships observed the following: ....