Orissa High Court
Sanjeeb @ Sanjib Kumbhar vs State Of Odisha on 28 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.817 of 2023
Sanjeeb @ Sanjib Kumbhar .... Appellant
Ms. Geetanjali Majhi, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
Mr. Sonak Mishra, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D. DASH
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
28.08.2023
CRLA No.817 of 2023
Order and
No. (I.A. No.1740 of 2023)
01. 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 2102 days
(5 years 2 months 7 days) in preferring the Appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the
Appellant is in custody for more than ten years. She
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 29-Aug-2023 12:43:58
// 2 //
further submits that on conclusion of the trial, the
Appellant was held guilty of the offences under Section
302 of the I.P.C. by the learned 1st Additional Sessions
Judge, Sambalpur vide judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 23.08.2017 passed in S.T. Case
No.117/19/84 of 2012-13-14 and was sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in
default to undergo R.I. for one year more. It is also
submitted that the Appellant being in custody, remained
under a bona fide impression that appeal has been
preferred. But, on verification, he could know that no
appeal has been preferred against the impugned
judgment. She submitted that the delay in filing the
Appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional. Therefore,
she urged for condoning the delay in filing the Appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposed the move citing
the period of delay for more than half a decade and
contending the explanation to be too casual and
unacceptable for a moment.
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 Appeal are found to be per se not
acceptable. On a close reading of the application under
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 29-Aug-2023 12:43:58
// 3 //
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation
of delay in filing the Appeal, it is found that the
application does not disclose any satisfactory explanation
for such long delay of more than five (5) years and two (2)
months in filing the Appeal. There surfaces no 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 period he has also not availed of
the opportunities of seeking any such assistance as readily
available in the jail. Hence, we are not inclined to condone
the long delay in filing the Appeal.
6. The I.A. is dismissed.
7. Consequently, the CRLA is dismissed being barred by
limitation.
. (D. Dash)
Judge
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
B.Jhankar
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 29-Aug-2023 12:43:58
