The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 5284 of 2023 (In the matter of an application under Sections 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Interlink (Pvt.) Ltd. ……. Petitioner (Through its M.D. Surendra Nath Dash) -Versus- Union of India (C.B.I) ……. Opp. Party For the Petitioner : Mr. Devashis Panda, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Special P.P. -cum- Retainer Counsel, C.B.I. CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 07.03.2025 : : Date of Judgment: 09.09.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The petitioner, a juristic person being a private limited company, has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 assailing the order dated 18.11.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (C.B.I.-I), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 01 of 2008 arising out of FIR No. RC BSK 2007 E 002, whereby the petition filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge from the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC was rejected. 2. Heard Mr. Devashis Panda, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned Special P.P. -cum- Retainer Counsel, Union of India (C.B.I.), Opposite Party.
Facts
Facts of the Case 3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, devoid of unnecessary details, are that the co-accused persons, namely Surendra Nath Dash (Managing Director of the present petitioner) and Rama Krishna Mishra (an employee under Surendra Nath Dash, operating one of the other company’s accounts on behalf of Surendra Nath Dash), allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy with the co-accused bank officers of Indian Overseas Bank, Paradip Branch. In furtherance thereof, Surendra Nath Dash, who was operating Current Account (C.A.) No.459 belonging to the present petitioner, i.e., Interlink Private Limited (along with some other accounts which are not relevant), at the same branch, allegedly Page 2 of 22 deposited cheques drawn on various accounts having insufficient funds to cover their face value. The co-accused bank officials, in violation of banking norms and by suppressing such overdrafts from the Regional Office, permitted the account holders to overdraw amounts, thereby conferring an undue advantage to the tune of Rs. 8.75 crores either upon themselves or the co-accused bank officers, resulting in corresponding pecuniary loss to the Indian Overseas Bank. 4. As the accused person, namely Surendra Nath Dash, who was the Managing Director of the present petitioner, was operating the petitioner’s account in the said bank, the present petitioner has also been brought within the purview of investigation, thereby making it a party to the case and subjecting it to face criminal proceedings for the offence primarily conceived by its Managing Director. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court on numerous occasions by filing multiple petitions and appeals, all of which have either been dismissed or withdrawn, except on the very first occasion when this Court directed re- framing of charges, having noted that a charge under Section 477-A IPC Page 3 of 22 was framed against the present petitioner, and held that a company could not be considered a clerk, officer, or servant. However, following the withdrawal of the last CRLMA, i.e., CRLMA No. 315 of 2022, by the petitioner on 27.03.2023, the petitioner filed an application for discharge before the learned Special Judge (C.B.I.-I), which was summarily rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 18.11.2023. The said order is under challenge in the present case.
Legal Reasoning
strong prima facie case under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC exists against the petitioner. It is contended that the order merely records a general observation regarding vicarious liability without identifying any specific incriminating material against the company. Page 4 of 22 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner company, being a juristic person without a mind of its own, cannot enter into a conspiracy or possess the requisite mens rea to commit offences such as cheating under Section 420 IPC or conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, which necessarily require human intent and meeting of minds. The acts allegedly committed by its Managing Director cannot be automatically attributed to the company in the absence of any resolution or evidence showing institutional endorsement or participation by the company. 7. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank & Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement1, to contend that penal statutes must be strictly construed and that the legislature could not have intended to punish corporate entities with mandatory imprisonment, especially when such punishment cannot be imposed or undergone by a juristic person. 1 (2005) 4 SCC 530 Page 5 of 22 8. It is also submitted that there is no material on record to justify the rejection of the discharge application and continuation of proceedings against the company would amount to abuse of the process of law and cause undue prejudice. Moreover, the argument of the learned counsel for the CBI that earlier the dismissal of multiple petitions for default is misplaced, as such dismissal was not on merits and does not bar the present petition, especially when the framing of charge continues to be in challenge and no evidence has yet been recorded. Submissions made by the Learned Counsel for C.B.I., Opp. Party 9. Mr. Nayak, learned Counsel, appearing for the CBI submitted that the present CRLMC application has been filed by the accused Shri Surendra Nath Dash against the order dated 18.11.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court No. 1, Bhubaneswar in TR Case No. 01 of 2008 arising out of CBI Case No. RCBSK2007E0002. By the said order, the learned Trial Court rejected the petition dated 01.05.2023 filed by the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and fixed to 08.12.2023 for consideration on charges, directing the accused to remain present. Page 6 of 22 10. It is submitted that the allegations against the accused persons are serious in nature. Shri Surendra Nath Dash, along with co-accused Shri Rama Krishna Mishra, entered into a criminal conspiracy with certain bank officers of Indian Overseas Bank, Paradeep Branch, and deposited cheques drawn on various accounts having no sufficient funds. The co- accused bank officers, by abusing their official positions, violated banking norms, and suppressing overdrafts from the Regional Office, allowed withdrawals resulting in undue advantage of about ₹8.75 Crores to the accused persons and corresponding wrongful loss to the bank. The CBI, Bank Security and Fraud Cell, Kolkata, registered Case No. RCBSK2007E0002 dated 23.03.2007 under Sections 120-B read with 409, 420, 467, 468 & 477A IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988. After investigation, charge sheet No. 20/2007 dated 29.12.2007 was filed under Sections 120-B read with 420 & 477A IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) & (d) of the PC Act, 1988 against seven accused persons including the petitioner- Page 7 of 22 company, M/s Interlink Pvt. Ltd., represented through its Managing Director, Shri Surendra Nath Dash. 11. The learned Counsel for CBI further submitted that the petitioner has been filing repeated petitions on an attempt to stall the proceedings. CRLMC No. 1763/2011 challenging the rejection of discharge by the Trial Court was dismissed for non-prosecution on 06.11.2021. Though restoration was once allowed in CRLMA No. 254/2021, again on 25.03.2022, when listed, no one appeared, leading this Court to dismiss the case observing that: - " ****** ****** 4. The case is of the year 2011. 5. As such, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is a recalcitrant litigant and does not want to proceed with the matter. 6. Hence, prosecution." this CRLMC stands dismissed for non- Further CRLMA No. 78/2022 seeking restoration was also rejected on 05.05.2022, in which it was held that: - " ****** ****** Page 8 of 22 5. Mr. Bidyalok Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that as the name of Miss Rajdipa Behura, learned counsel, was appearing in the cause list as "R. Behura", she was missed the list and could not appear before the Court. Hence, the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Case be restored and disposed of on merit. 6. I am not inclined to do so, as this is the second default. 7. Hence, the CRLMA is dismissed. 8. But, liberty is given to the Petitioner to approach this Court, if the cause of action survives, by filing a fresh petition." Availing such liberty, the petitioner filed CRLMA No. 229/2022, which was again dismissed on 22.09.2022 by this Court holding: - " ****** ****** 4. In view of the order dated 5th May, 2022 passed by this Court in CRLMA No. 78 of 2022, I am not inclined to entertain the prayer made in this petition. 5. Hence, the CRLMA is dismissed." 12. Importantly, no further liberty was given thereafter. Subsequently, in CRLMA No. 315/2022, the petitioner sought withdrawal by referring to liberty earlier granted, but this Court merely permitted withdrawal without granting any liberty to re-agitate the issues. Learned counsel for the CBI submitted that the petitioner misrepresented before the Trial Court as if liberty was granted to file a fresh discharge petition. Acting Page 9 of 22 on such pretence, the petitioner filed a second discharge petition, which was rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court on 18.11.2023, holding: the present accused "In the present case the earlier petition filed by the accused petitioner U/s.239 Cr. P.C was rejected by this court on 29.04.2011 and the same order is in force. Further, from the case record and documents it is found that there is prima facie material and sufficient ground for proceeding against petitioner-company. Considering the present facts and circumstance of the case, this court comes to the conclusion that the present accused petitioner M/s (accused No.7) Interlink Pvt. Ltd. represented through its Managing Director, Surendranath Das cannot be discharged. As such, I am not inclined to allow the petition and the petition filed by the accused- petitioner dated 1.5.2023 stand rejected being devoid of merits." 13. The learned Counsel for CBI emphasizes that the present CRLMC is not maintainable, as the order rejecting discharge has already attained finality and no liberty was granted to file a second discharge application. As regards the petitioner’s contention that a company, being a juristic person, cannot be prosecuted for offences requiring mens rea, it is submitted that Section 11 IPC defines “person” to include companies, and hence IPC provisions are equally applicable. Reliance is placed on Page 10 of 22 Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc.2, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a company can be held liable under Section 420 IPC, and the guilty mind of those in control can be attributed to the company. Further reliance is placed on Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement3, where a Constitution Bench held that a company can be prosecuted and convicted even for offences requiring imprisonment. Learned counsel for the CBI submitted that the role of the petitioner-company has been clearly detailed out in the charge sheet at several pages annexed to the main CRLMC petition. In conclusion, it is submitted that the petitioner has been abusing the process of law by repeatedly filing petitions, despite rejection on merits or dismissal for default, and misrepresenting liberty before the Trial Court. There is sufficient prima facie material against the petitioner-company, and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Arguments
Submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner 5. Learned Counsel Mr. Panda, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the discharge petition filed by the petitioner company was arbitrarily rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 18.11.2023 without specifying the material relied upon to conclude that a