A criminal case against a "name-sake person" who was alleged to have received illegal compensation for purchasing land was dismissed by the Orissa High Court. When he realized the error, the man—who had the same name, parents, and address as the real beneficiary—returned the money.

Citing the incident's unintentional nature, Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra rendered a decision in favor of the defendant.
“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 contexts, such action strengthens trust and shows that a 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,” the court observed.

Bhramarabar Mohanty had bought two plots of land from 1979 to 1983 in the name of his son, Arun Kumar Mohanty. These plots were later acquired by IDCO in 2004 for industrial purposes. Discrepancies arose when Arun Kumar Mohanty alleged he never received the compensation amount, which was received by another individual.

Innocent Mix-up

The individual in question received Rs 17,72,302 in compensation. After the rightful owner submitted a claim, the funds were returned to the authorities, but an FIR was lodged against the man and several officials, alleging corruption and fraud under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Charges were levelled against him in 2015.

Despite applying for discharge on the grounds that he neither acted with criminal intent nor caused harm, and having returned the money, his plea was initially denied. However, the High Court acknowledged these factors in its final judgement, confirming no wrongdoing due to the absence of malicious intent and the return of the disputed funds.

“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 IPC largely covers the case of the petitioner,” the Court said. 

“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,” the court added.