Prafulla Mallik vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 1727 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                             CRLA No.372 of 2016

              Prafulla Mallik                         ....          Appellant

                                     Mr. Mahesh Das, Advocate

                                           -versus-
              State of Odisha                         ....     Respondent

                                     Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy,
                                     Addl. Standing Counsel
                                      CORAM:

                               JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO

                                        ORDER

Order No. 23.02.2023

15. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

Heard Mr. Mahesh Das, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State of Odisha.

Hearing is concluded and the judgment is dictated in open Court vide separate sheets.

The Criminal Appeal is dismissed subject to modification in the sentence. The substantive sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in 2(a) C.C. No.07 of 2011N (T.R. No.12 of 2011) is reduced from twelve years to ten years and the fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court stands confirmed but the default sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is reduced from two years to // 2 //

eight months.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the petitioner has already undergone ten years of substantive sentence.

On verification of the case record, it appears that the appellant was taken into judicial custody in connection with this case on 02.07.2011. He was never released on bail during pendency of the trial and during pendency of this appeal, he was released on interim bail as per the order dated 08.11.2021 in Misc. Case No.1029 of 2016 for a period of three months.

Learned counsel for the appellant has filed the surrender certificate of the appellant, which indicates that the appellant surrendered on 11.10.2022 and he was taken into judicial custody. The surrender certificate is taken on record.

Thus, it appears that the appellant has not only undergone ten years of substantive sentence but also the default sentence of eight months.

Since the appellant has already undergone the sentence which satisfies the substantive sentence of ten years and also default sentence of eight months, he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.

(S.K. Sahoo) Judge RKM