Durg, Chhattisgarh KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN v. 1 - Mukund Sinha S/o. Kishunram Sinha Aged About 49 Years R/o. Bhelwadih, Abhanpur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:2818 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 261 of 2018 State of Chhattisgarh Through- The District Magistrate, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Mukund Sinha S/o. Kishunram Sinha Aged About 49 Years R/o. Bhelwadih, Abhanpur, Police Station Abhanpur, Police Station Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Gurmeet Singh S/o Kurwant Singh Aged About 51 Years R/o.- 49 Eklavya Apartment, Sector-13, Rahini, New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi 3 - Sukhdeo Singh S/o. Raghuveer Singh Aged About 56 Years R/o.- 7/14, D.L.F. Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana, District : Gurgaon, Haryana 4 - Subrato Bhatacharya S/o. V. Bhatacharya R/o.-I A Road No. 72, West Punjabi Bag, New Delhi, Punjab ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Adv. General. For Respondents : Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 16.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, learned Deputy Advocate General, 2 appearing for the petitioner/State. Also heard Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner/State has been filed this present petition seeking following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition of the applicant/State and further may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 16.11.2017 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Chhattisgarh Nishepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Niyam, 2005) Durg in Special Criminal Case No. 05/2017, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case that the Non- applicant/accused No.1 & 2 at relevant time was acting as agent of Non-applicants No.3 and 4 and was collecting the amount from various persons to be deposited in a Company named as P.A.C.L. India Limited Company. The Non-applicant No.1 always projected himself to be employee of the aforesaid company. Upon receiving the information, the concerned Police Station Ranitarai, District Durg has investigated the offence, took statement of Poshan Kumar Sinha, Smt. Benbati, Mohitram Sahu, Chandrahas Sahu, Punaram, Bhuwanlal, Bishalram, Smt. Radha Bai, Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha, Tejram Sinha, Smt. Kirti Bai, Tilakram. All the persons said that they have been defrauded by the Non-applicant No.1 and had acted on instructions and orders of Non-applicants No.2 to 4. 4. During the course of investigation, Section 91 of Cr.P.C notice 3 was also served to Regional Manager, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) on 1st December, 2016 which informed on 14/12/2016 that M/s. PACL India Limited is not registered with SEBI and SEBI has passed an order dated 22/08/2014 directing M/s. PACL India Limited to refund the money collected from various investors within a period of 3 months. The said order of SEBI was challenged by M/s. PACL India Limited before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had vide its order dated 02/02/2016 constituted a Committee headed by retired Chief Justice of India Hon'ble Justice Shri R.N. Lodha. A similar section 91 notice was also served to Deputy General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bhopal (MP) on 01/12/2016 and reply was received on 23/03/2016, wherein the Reserve Bank of India informed that M/s. PACL India Limited is not registered with the Reserve Bank of India as Non-Banking Financial Company. It is submitted that Section 91 notice addressed to SEBI dated 01/12/2016 submitted its reply dated 14/12/2016, copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 02/02/2016 in Civil Appeal No.13301 of 2015 (Subrato Bhatacharya Vs. SEBI) and section 91 notice dated 01/12/2016 to Reserve Bank of India dated 23/12/2016 are all part of the Challan as is evident from Column 11 (A) of the Challan. It is submitted that the entire charge-sheet/challan is also annexed with this application as Annexure-A-7. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order 4 impugned passed by the learned Court below is bad in law as well as on facts. He further submits that the learned Court failed to consider that the Non-applicants have been found to be at fault by SEBI and are not registered with RBI. The learned Court below did not consider the charge sheet in its entirety and on the technical ground has discharged the non-applicants from the Act of 2005. The only defect is that the investigation has been done by the police whereas it ought to have been initiated by the District Collector or an officer duly nominated by the Collector. The said defect pointed out by the learned Court below in the breach of Rule 5 of the Rules, 2005 framed under section 17 of the Act, 2015 is a mere irregularity and not an illegality. The said defect is a curable defect. He later submits that he has also ought to have seen that poor persons of the State have been defrauded by persons from outside the State taking advantage of simplicity of the persons of the State of Chhattisgarh and therefore the Court ought not to have taken lenient view in the matter. Similarly the learned Court below has failed to take into account the gravity of the offences and the conduct of the accused and also failed to appreciate that all the mandatory procedures as provided under the Act, 2005, were duly complied with by the Investigating authorities. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents opposes the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for 5 the petitioner/State and submits that after applying its mind the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Chhattisgarh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sarakshan Niyam, 2005), Durg (C.G.) passed the order dated 16.11.2017 discharging the respondent Nos.1 to 4 for the offence under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Niyam, 2005, in which no interference is called for. Thus, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with this petition. 8. From perusal of the records and submissions raised by the counsel for the petitioner, it transpires that the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge has held that the Chhattisgarh Depositors' Interest Protection Act, 2005, aims to safeguard depositors' interests by ensuring financial establishments provide benefits and investments related to deposited amounts. Learned Special Judge further held that proceedings under this Act are initiated before the District Magistrate to protect depositors' interests. If the competent authority finds fraudulent default by financial establishments or companies during investigation, action can be taken under this special Act. If fraudulent default is found, proceedings for prosecution under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Niyam, 2005 can be initiated. Since no action has been taken against the accused 6 under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Niyam, 2005 and they are discharged and the case has been transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, for proceedings under Sections 420, 409, 120B IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes Act. 9. Considering the fact that the accused / respondents are already facing trial for the offences in question for which the present petition has been filed and the accused has already been discharged from the offence under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Niyam, 2005, I do not find any scope for interference in this petition. 10. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal