In the legal sphere, cases often involve intricate details and complex proceedings. One such case that has garnered attention is the dispute between Operation Mobilization India (OMI) and the State of Telangana. OMI, along with other petitioners, has been embroiled in a legal battle against the State of Telangana and its respondents. This blog delves into the key aspects of this ongoing legal saga, shedding light on the parties involved and the nature of their dispute.
Facts
- FIR No. 22 of 2016 was lodged by respondent no. 3 on 29.9.2016 under Sections 409, 420, 477(A) and Section 37 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010.
- Investigation was taken up by the Economic Offences Wing (CID), Telangana State.
- A Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed by Joseph D’Souza challenging the State CID Unit’s authority to investigate FCRA cases involving more than one crore rupees, advocating for CBI’s jurisdiction as per a notification by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
- The CID Telangana State froze the petitioners’ accounts on 21st November, 2020, after more than four years of the FIR registration.
- Previous judgments and directions indicated expeditious investigation and potential actions as per the law.
- Various legal proceedings, including SLPs and a Writ Petition, emphasized the need for proper investigation, with some suggesting CBI’s involvement.
Also Read: Annapurneshwari Cotton Co. Legal Dispute
Arguments
- The petitioners will be content and satisfied if granted liberty to continue utilizing their accounts for salary and expenses
- They will maintain proper and complete statement of accounts
- They commit to contest pending proceedings before High Courts and other Courts on their own merits
- They will avail available remedies under law for proceedings initiated against them
- The petitioner-organisation was running 103 institutions and primary health centers in 18 states.
- They were not interested in shutting down the institutions.
- They agreed to maintain proper financial records and audits for transparency.
- The investigating agency can access the financial statements when required.
- No contempt was found as the withdrawals were within permissible limits for salaries and institutional expenses.
Also Read: Master Irshad v. Dr. Anindya Gupta: Negligence in Eye Surgery Case
Analysis
- No finding was recorded on the aspect discussed.
- The question at hand was not delved into further.
- The analysis did not extend to that particular question.
Decision
- The order of attachment dated 21st November, 2020 is stayed in regards to salary and institutional expenses.
- CID TS is permitted to continue further investigation and file a charge sheet.
- Alternatively, further investigation can be entrusted to CBI, ACB as deemed fit.
- The petitioners must maintain proper and complete statements of accounts for expenses from frozen accounts.
- The matter is listed for the last week of July 2021.
- The interim order dated 7th April, 2021 is made absolute with the condition of maintaining proper accounts audited by a Chartered Accountant.
- Quarterly statements of accounts should be provided to the Investigating Officer or Trial Court regularly.
- Pending proceedings in other forums to continue as per law.
- No observations on merits have been made; the order is for the smooth functioning of educational institutions and health centers run by petitioners.
- Disposition of all pending applications, including contempt petition.
Case Title: OPERATION MOBILIZATION INDIA Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA (2024 INSC 275)
Case Number: SLP(Crl) No.-004949-004950 / 2024
