The Orissa High Court has quashed a criminal case against a man who accidentally received ₹17.72 lakh in compensation for land acquired by authorities from his namesake. The court ruled that the petitioner, Arun Kumar Mohanty, encashed the awarded amount under the mistaken belief that it was intended for him, and upon realizing the error, promptly returned the money.
Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, delivering the 15-page verdict on January 29, observed that Mohanty’s act of returning the money without delay reflected “his honesty and sense of ethical responsibility.” The judgment emphasized that such actions strengthen trust and demonstrate that the petitioner had no intention of wrongful gain.
The case stemmed from an incident in 2011, when Mohanty, a security officer in a state-run public sector undertaking, mistakenly believed he was entitled to the compensation for land acquired by the government. The compensation was mistakenly issued to him due to the similarity in the names, parentage, and address of the petitioner and the rightful claimant. Mohanty received the money in 2012 and, after being served a notice in 2013 by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) in Jagatsinghpur, promptly returned the full amount.
The court noted that Mohanty acted in good faith and had no intention of usurping someone else’s claim. The ruling referenced Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code, which protects individuals who act in good faith, and determined that there was no financial loss caused to the exchequer or the complainant.
Justice Mishra further stated that while the temptation to retain money can be a natural human response, the important factor is how one manages that temptation. The court concluded that Mohanty’s conduct in this instance reflected integrity, and the case was dismissed in recognition of his honesty and prompt rectification of the mistake.
This decision underscores the importance of good faith and ethical responsibility, with the court noting that sincere repentance and rectification lead to moral and legal redemption, citing the Bhagavad Gita in its ruling.
The case is a significant example of how courts weigh intention and good faith in criminal matters, particularly when dealing with mistakes and human error.
Sources By Agencies
