Pranav B Prem

The Orissa High Court has quashed a criminal case against a man who mistakenly received compensation for land acquisition due to his name, parentage, and address resembling those of the actual beneficiary. Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, while discharging him from criminal liability, emphasized the significance of ethical responsibility and redemption, citing the Bhagavad Gita.

Court’s Observation: Good Faith And Ethical Conduct

The petitioner had received a compensation amount of ₹17,72,302/- based on a notice issued by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), Jagatsinghpur. Believing in good faith that the land was acquired in his name, he submitted relevant documents and executed an indemnity bond agreeing to return the amount in case of any dispute. When the real beneficiary, Arun Kumar Mohanty, claimed the compensation, the petitioner immediately returned the entire sum. Justice Mishra, highlighting the petitioner’s ethical conduct, stated: "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 of guilt followed by sincere repentance and devotion leads to redemption and peace.’" The Court noted that the petitioner had no criminal intent and acted based on a mistaken identity. Once notified, he complied with indemnification and refunded the full amount, ensuring no financial loss to either the exchequer or the rightful beneficiary.

Background Of The Case

The case stemmed from a land acquisition process initiated in 2004 for industrial purposes by the Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCO), Bhubaneswar. One Bhramarabar Mohanty had purchased land between 1979 and 1983 in his son Arun Kumar Mohanty’s name. Due to identical name and details, the petitioner, a different Arun Kumar Mohanty, was mistakenly identified as the beneficiary. Upon receiving notice, the petitioner’s brother verified its authenticity. The petitioner, convinced of his legitimate claim, presented certified copies of land documents and received compensation. However, when the rightful claimant objected, the petitioner returned the entire sum as per the indemnity bond. Despite this, an FIR was registered under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 419, 420, and 120-B of the IPC. A charge sheet was filed on September 14, 2015, naming the petitioner among the accused. His discharge plea under Section 239 of CrPC was rejected by the Special Judge (Vigilance), leading him to approach the High Court.

High Court’s Ruling: No Criminal Intent, Protection Under IPC Section 79

The Court examined the case under Section 79 of the IPC, which provides immunity for acts committed under a mistaken belief in good faith. The judgment explicitly noted: "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 exchequer or to the complainant for that matter. Section 79 of the I.P.C. largely covers the case of the petitioner."

Further, the Court drew upon established legal principles, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Nikhil Merchant v. CBI & Anr. and the Orissa High Court’s decision in State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa (the "ghost killing case"). The judgment emphasized: "Feeling tempted by money is a natural human response, not a crime. Key is how one manages the temptation. Money is power, which is a deeply ingrained human desire. Desire itself is neutral; action determines the moral and legal implication. The question is whether the temptation is managed with integrity or by compromising morally or legally." In the petitioner’s case, the Court found no wrongful intent. It held that the resemblance in name, parentage, and address led to an understandable error, and his voluntary return of the compensation underscored his good faith.

Judgment: Discharge From Criminal Proceedings

The High Court concluded that the case was more of a civil dispute with a criminal facet, and no criminal liability should be attributed to the petitioner. Recognizing his bona fide conduct, the Court ruled: "In the said scenario, the only inference that could be drawn is that the petitioner has availed the benefit of the award by good faith and subsequently he has returned once he came to know regarding the genuine claim of the complainant." Accordingly, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings and discharged the petitioner from all charges.

Cause Title: Arun Kumar Mohanty V/S State of Odisha (Vigilance)

Case No: Crl Rev No.722 of 2024

Date: January-29-2025

Bench: Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra

[Read/Download order]