CUTTACK: Economic offences pose a significant danger to a country’s economy at large and threat to the law of the land, said the Orissa High Court.
A single judge bench of Justice SK Panigrahi said economic offences are but another endeavour to fulfil an individual’s avarice over the interest of society and are perpetrated at the cost of the interest of the common man. The observation came while dismissing former Banki MLA Pravat Tripathy’s petition seeking quashing of the proceedings pending against him before the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Bhubaneswar.
Tripathy had sought quashing of the proceedings claiming he has been falsely implicated for allegedly having received a kickback worth Rs 42 lakh from chief of AT Group Pradeep Sethy, the main accused as quid pro quo for aiding him to run his illegal business/operations.
While declining to interfere in the matter, Justice Panigrahi said the case relates to the commission of an economic offence and the involvement of present petitioner has a humongous effect on the prospective investors and their temptation to invest in such lucrative schemes.
The entirety of circumstances showcase that the petitioner was prima facie aware of the nature of the business of the principal accused (Sethy) and knowing the background fully well he consciously chose to bless the principal accused with his patronage in exchange for monetary benefits, Justice Panigrahi observed in his December 17 order.
The petitioner’s patronisation was sought by the principal accused in order to further the unscrupulous business by striking a sense of confidence in the heart of the investors, he said.
“Consequently, it becomes imperative that the matter be subjected to the rigour of thorough trial in respect of the alleged offences to meet the ends of justice. Without a trial, it is not possible to fathom or proper to hold whether or not the allegations made against the petitioner are made out or not,” Justice Panigrahi observed
“Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the nature of supporting evidence, its serious adverse impact on the fabric of the society and misappropriation of huge sums of public money, this Court finds no ground to interfere against the proceedings at this stage”, Justice Panigrahi further said.