The Orissa high court has quashed a criminal case against a man who received the ₹17.72 lakh compensation for land acquired by the authorities from his namesake in 2011, observing that the fact he readily returned the money after the error was pointed out reflected “his honesty and 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,” justice Sibo Sankar Mishra said in his 15-page verdict delivered on January 29.
Justice Mishra discharged Arun Kumar Mohanty, a security officer in a state-run public sector undertaking, in the cheating case filed against him in December 2012, days before he returned the amount in January 2013.
“The name, parentage, age and address of the present petitioner and the informant are resembles without any variation. Therefore, this would be at best a case of mistaken identity,” the bench said.
“It is apparent that the petitioner has encashed the awarded amount by mistakenly believing himself to be the one entitled for the claim. The only question, therefore, needed to be decided was whether the petitioner has acted in good faith while accepting the award amount or he had intention to usurp someone’s genuine claim having knowledge that the same does not belong to him. It appears to be a conduct of good faith,” the high court said, extending the benefit of acting in good faith under Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code to the petitioner.
“He received compensation only after being served a notice by the LAO (Land Acquisition Officer) 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 land acquisition officer 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.
{{/usCountry}}“He received compensation only after being served a notice by the LAO (Land Acquisition Officer) 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 land acquisition officer 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.
{{/usCountry}}“Feeling tempted by money is a natural human response, not a crime. Key is how one manages the temptation. Money is power, which is deeply ingrained human desire. Desire itself is neutral, action, determines the moral and the legal implication. Question is whether with integrity or by compromising morally or legally the temptation is managed? The question of good faith must be considered with reference to the position of the accused and the circumstances under which he has acted upon,” the high court said.