Milu Sinku vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 2844 Ori

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          JCRLA No.22 of 2023


        Milu Sinku                            ....         Appellant

                                     Mr. Nityananda Mohapatra, Adv.

                                  -versus-

        State of Odisha                      ....        Respondent

                                             Mr. S.S. Kanungo, AGA



                  CORAM:
                  MR. JUSTICE D. DASH
                  DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
                                 ORDER

05.04.2023

JCRLA No.22 of 2023 and Order I.A. No.49 of 2023 No.

02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement

(virtual / physical) mode.

2. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 2538

days, i.e., 6 years, 11 months and 18 days in preferring the

Appeal.

// 2 //

3. Heard.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that after

pronouncement of the impugned judgment on 13.01.2016,

the Appellant is languishing in jail custody. He submits

that the father of the Appellant, who was looking after the

case, is also suffering from old age ailments for which he

was not able to contact his Lawyer in time. Therefore,

delay has been caused in filing the Criminal Appeal

beyond the statutory period which is neither deliberate

nor intentional. Therefore, the Appellant prays for

condoning the delay in filing the Jail Criminal Appeal.

5. Considering the submissions and on going through the

averments made in the I.A., the grounds as stated by the

learned counsel for the Appellant for condonation of

delay in filing the Criminal Appeal are per se not

acceptable. On a close reading of the application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation

of delay in filing the Criminal Appeal, it is found that the

application does not disclose any satisfactory explanation

for such long delay in filing the Criminal Appeal. There is

complete absence of sufficient cause to condone the delay.

In fact, the Appellant is found to have sat over the matter

for a long time by not filing the Appeal and during the

// 3 //

period he has also not availed of the opportunities of

seeking any such assistance as readily available in the jail.

6. Hence, we are not inclined to condone the long delay of

6 years, 11 months and 18 days in filing the Jail Criminal

Appeal.

7. The I.A. is dismissed.

8. Consequently, the JCRLA is dismissed being barred by

limitation.

          .                                               (D. Dash)
                                                            Judge




                                                     (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
                                                             Judge




Himansu