Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa vs Sk.Sarifuddin Ahamed ..... Opposite ... on 5 August, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP No.17 of 2003
State Of Orissa ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.d.k.mohapatra,s.c.vig
-versus-
Sk.sarifuddin Ahamed ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
M/s.k.p.bhaumik, M/s
S.k.zafarulla,s.pattanaik,j.kamila
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
05.08.2025
Order No.
17. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. S.Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance
Department, the petitioner in this case as well as the learned counsel
appearing for the Opposite Parties. Perused the records as well as the
judgment dated 22.01.2002 passed in T.R. No.14 of 1993 by the
learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar.
3. By filing the present application under Section 378 Cr.P.C. the
State (Vigilance) seeks leave of this Court to prefer an appeal
against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.01.2002.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
the evidence collected during investigation as well as on the basis of
the deposition and other materials which were placed before the trial
court, a case is well established against the Opposite Party-accused
that the money that was temporarily miss-appropriated by them was
deposited only after they were placed under suspension. In the
aforesaid context, learned counsel for the petitioner laid emphasis on
Ground No.D of the leave petition and stated before this Court that
the learned Special Judge has over looked the malafide intention of
the accused person and that the accused person after miss-
appropriating a part of the municipal fund have failed to submit any
account to the municipality explaining about the manner in which
the amount was spent by them on behalf of the municipality and they
have also failed in depositing the balance amount. Eventually, the
amount was deposited only after they were placed under suspension.
As such, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that a case of
temporary miss-appropriation of the public fund is well made out
against the present Petitioner on the basis of the materials available
on record and that such aspect has been over looked by the learned
Special Judge while delivering the judgment of acquittal. As a result,
the present leave petition has been filed before this Court. On the
aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the petitioner sought for leave
to file an appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal dated
22.01.2002.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-
accused contended that the judgment of acquittal by the learned
Special Judge is a well-reasoned judgment and that the learned trial
court has taken note of all the aspects. It was also contended that in
course of trial several questions were formulated and while
answering such questions the learned trial court has discussed in
detail the evidence available on record and finally in Para-18 of the
judgment the learned trial court has come to a well-reasoned
conclusion that the accused persons temporarily withheld the money
entrusted to them and that there is no evidence on record that they
have converted this money for their personal use or gain and on
being directed by their higher authorities the spent amount has been
deposited. In such view of the matter, learned trial court has come to
a conclusion that it does not amount to be dishonest intention on the
part of the accused persons so as to construe a case of miss-
appropriation against the accused persons. On such ground, learned
counsel for the opposite parties contended that no leave is to be
granted on the aforesaid basis. He further contended that the
occurrence is of the year 1993 that the judgment against which leave
is sought for is of the year 2002, therefore the grant of leave at this
stage file an appeal against such a trivial matter would cause serious
prejudice to the Opposite Party and would cause grave justice to the
accused persons.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts,
further on a close scrutiny of the judgment dated 22.01.2002 passed
in T.R. No.14 of 1993 by the learned Special Judge Vigilance,
Bhubaneswar, this Court found that the judgment delivered by the
learned Special Judge Vigilance, Bhubaneswar, it appears that all the
evidences available on the record have been taken note of by the
learned court below while arriving at the conclusion. On further
scrutiny, this Court did not find any lapses on the part of a learned
trial court. While making such observation, this Court is of the view
that although the counsel for the petitioner has raised a valid point,
however the same is not adequate to grant leave to file an appeal
under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. after a lapse of almost 23 years.
This Court is also of the view that considering the magnitude of the
allegation and further keeping in view the fact that the leave is being
sought to prefer an appeal against the judgment of the year 2002 for
commission of an offence that has taken place several decades ago
would definitely cause grave injustice to the accused-Opposite Party.
7. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation and
dismissing the leave application. Accordingly, the same is hereby
dismissed.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
