Gopinath Barik vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 7050 Ori

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                     CRLREV No. 377 of 2022

            Gopinath Barik                                    ....           Petitioner
                                                               Mr. A.K. Nath, Advocate
                                             - Versus -
            State of Odisha                                    ....          Opp.Party
                                               Mr. J. Tripathy, Addl. Standing Counsel
                                               Mr. P.S. Nayak, Advocate (for Railway)

                            CORAM:
                              JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                                           ORDER

02.12.2022

I.A. No. 523 of 2022 Order No. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press this application.

3. I.A. is dismissed as not-pressed.

(Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

I.A. No. 798 of 2022

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Order No.

3. 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.

Tripathy, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned counsel for Railways.

3. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1566 days in filing of the appeal.

4. It is stated that the impugned judgment was pronounced on 27.01.2018 but the petitioner being an ignorant, poor and rustic villager had no knowledge of the same as his advocate did not communicate anything to him. Further he being the only earning member of the family had to look after his ailing parents. That apart the appellant was also

suffering for malaria. Subsequently, the situation arising out of the Covid-19 pandemic arose. Because of all such reasons, the appellant could not contact his advocate regarding the case before the court below. Ultimately having come to know about the passing of the impugned judgment, he was advised by his conducting counsel to prefer the instant appeal. In the process, he has been delayed.

5. It is submitted by Mr. A.K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the delay is not willful or deliberate but entirely due to bonafide and genuine reason stated in the petition. He further submits that the appellant being wrongly convicted has a good case on merit and therefore, a lenient view may be taken by condoning the delay.

6. Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Railways has opposed the prayer for condonation of delay. Referring to the written objection filed by him to the petition it is submitted that the grounds cited by the petitioner cannot be treated as sufficient to condone the delay. He further submits that the appellant, by remaining silent for so long must be deemed to have forfeited his right to prefer the appeal.

7. I have considered the rival submissions and I have also gone through the materials on record. Having regard to the poverty and the rustic background of the appellant as also his contention that he has an arguable case on merits, I am inclined to take a lenient view by condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The delay of 1566 days in filing the appeal is condoned subject to payment of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only as cost by the petitioner to the High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund.

8. I.A. is disposed of.

4. List the CRLREV next week.

5. Proof of deposit shall be filed in the meantime.

(Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

A.K. Rana