'Bhagavad Gita Says Realisation Of Guilt Leads To Redemption': Orissa HC Quashes Case Against 'Name-Sake' Who Returned Mistakenly Received Compensation

The Orissa High Court has quashed a criminal case against a 'name-sake person', for receiving a compensation amount against the acquisition of land in good faith, whose name, parentage and address resembled another person who was in fact entitled to the amount.As the petitioner returned the received money after knowing about the mistake, the Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra deemed it proper to discharge him from criminal charges and observed –“Returning money especially when it was received mistakenly or unfairly demonstrates bona fide. It not only reflects honesty but also a sense of ethical responsibility. In legal and moral context, such action strengthens trust and shows that person has no intention of wrongful gain. Even in Bhagavad Gita, it is said “Realisation guilt followed by sincere repentance and devotion leads to redemption and peace.”Case BackgroundOne Bhramarabar Mohanty had purchased two lands between 1979 to 1983 in the name of his son Arun Kumar Mohanty (the informant). In 2004, on the requisition of IDCO, Bhubaneswar, the Land Acquisition Officer (MIP), Jagatsinghpur (LAO) acquired the lands for industrial purposes.A compensation was fixed and disbursed. But the informant alleged that he did not receive the same, rather someone else had taken away the awarded compensation amount on misrepresentation. So far as the involvement of the petitioner is concerned, a notice was issued in his name and address. In response to the said notice, the brother of the petitioner approached the authority to confirm the same. After getting confirmation, the petitioner believed in good faith that the land might have been purchased by his father in his name.On being asked by the LAO, the petitioner produced the documents relating to the land in question by obtaining certified copies from the Sub-Registrar's Office. The compensation was assessed at Rs.17,72,302/- in respect of the acquired land and the same was released in favour of the petitioner on his executing an indemnity bond to refund money, in case it is claimed by anyone else or if the claim is found to be false.It was alleged that later the real beneficiary-Arun Kumar Mohanty/the informant laid his claim over the lands and compensation. Receiving the rival claim, the LAO issued notice to the petitioner. After receiving the notice, the petitioner returned the entire compensation amount to the LAO.However, an F.I.R. was already registered against him and other officials for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 419/420/120-B of the IPC. The matter was investigated and charge-sheet was filed on 14.09.2015 inter alia against the petitioner.Though the petitioner prayed before the trial Court for discharge under Section 239 of CrPC, his petition was dismissed on the ground that the commission of the offence was prima facie palpable against him. Being aggrieved, he filed this revision petition before the High Court.It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner and therefore, criminal liability cannot be foisted upon him. Moreover, there is no loss caused to the exchequer or to the informant. Furthermore, the amount received by him has already been returned on indemnification. Hence, he argued, the conduct of a person poised with good faith and bona fide belief does not attract any criminal offence.Court's ObservationsThe Court acknowledged the fact that the names and other details of the petitioner resembled that of the informant. Also, he received compensation only after being served a notice by the LAO who asked him to produce land documents. Therefore, he took the compensation amount in the bona fide belief that he is entitled to the same.“Once the same came to light, notice was issued to the petitioner by the LAO, Jagatsinghpur. In pursuance to the said notice, the petitioner has refunded the entire amount by indemnification. Therefore, indeed there is no financial loss caused either to the ex-chequer or to the complainant for that matter. Section 79 of the I.P.C. largely covers the case of the petitioner,” the Court held.Section 79 of IPC says that nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it.Justice Mishra referred to a catena of judgments on the relevant point of law including the decision of the Supreme Court in Nikhil Merchant v. CBI & Anr. and ruling of the Orissa High Court in the famous 'ghost killing case' i.e. State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa.Having regard for the law laid down in the aforementioned cases, the Court said that the instant case is basically a civil dispute involving claim of the award amount having somewhat criminal facet. The only question, therefore, needed to be decided was whether the petitioner has...

'Bhagavad Gita Says Realisation Of Guilt Leads To Redemption': Orissa HC Quashes Case Against 'Name-Sake' Who Returned Mistakenly Received Compensation

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags