Orissa High Court
Sasmita Pradhan vs State Of Odisha (Vig.) ..... Opp. Party on 22 April, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.3657 of 2024
Sasmita Pradhan ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Prateik Parija
-versus-
State Of Odisha (Vig.) ..... Opp. Party
Represented By Adv. -
N. Maharana, A.S.C. for
the Vig. Department
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
22.04.2025
I.A. No.1119 of 2025
Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
A.S.C. for the Vigilance Dept. Perused the I.A.
3. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the Petitioner
seeking modification in the language of para-27 & 32 of judgment
dated 16.04.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
the language used in those two paragraphs might cause prejudice to
the Petitioner. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Petitioner prayed
that the same be suitably modified. With regard to the observations
in para-32 of the judgment, learned counsel for the Petitioner
contended that one of the co-accused has also filed an application
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In such view of the matter, learned
counsel for the Petitioner submitted that such observation by this
Court might affect the result of the application under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. preferred by the co-accused persons.
5. Learned A.S.C. for the Vigilance Dept. on the other hand
objected to the modification on the ground that the final judgment
has already been delivered. Therefore, any interference with the
judgment would amount to review of the judgment dated 16.04.2025,
which is not permissible in law. Accordingly, it was prayed that the
I.A. filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable in law. He further
contended that the copy of the I.A. was received today.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties, on a careful examination of the prayer made in the I.A.,
further keeping in view the modification sought for, this Court is of
the considered view that the same is formal in nature and that such
modification would not change the nature and character of the
judgment. On the other hand, if such modification is not allowed, the
same might cause prejudice to the Petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by learned
counsels appearing for the respective parties, further keeping in view
the larger interest of justice, this Court is inclined to allow the
modification. As such, the language used in 12th line of para-27 of
the judgment dated 16.04.2025 is modified and in place of
"Nevertheless, with regard to the aforesaid contentious position, this
Court is of the observation that the said disputed position is to be
ironed out at the stage of trial and not at this stage, since it is not
open to the Court to conduct a mini-trial while exercising its powers
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C (reference may be had to paragraph
10 of CBI vs Aryan Singh, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 379).",
the words "this Court observes that the said contentious position may
be considered and determined on its own merit in deciding the case
of the principal accused" be replaced. Further, the 8th line (last line)
of para-32 of the said judgment, i.e. "However, it is further directed
that every endeavor should be made to conclude the trial in respect
of the other accused as expeditiously as possible." is hereby deleted.
8. Accordingly, the I.A. stands allowed.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 23-Apr-2025 14:34:40
