Pramod Kumar Naik vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 3228 Ori

Orissa High Court

Pramod Kumar Naik vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 7 August, 2025

Author: R.K. Pattanaik

Bench: R.K. Pattanaik

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                  CRLREV No.452 of 2025
            Pramod Kumar Naik                        ....            Petitioners

                                                 Mr. S.K.Dwibedi, Advocate
                                         -Versus-
            State of Odisha                          ....       Opposite party

                                                          Mr. P.K.Sahoo, ASC


                      CORAM:
                      MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
                                        ORDER

07.08.2025

Order No. I.A. No. 667 of 2025

01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sahoo learned ASC for the State.

2. Instant I.A. is filed by the petitioner seeking delay condonation in presenting the revision beyond time.

3. A delay of 3,830 days is reported by the S.R.

4. Mr. Dwibedi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court below disposed of the appeal appointing Amicus Curiae which was not within the knowledge of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner was arrested recently on execution of NBWA i.e. on 12th May, 2024 and then he learnt about the impugned judgment i.e. Annexure-2 in Criminal Appeal No. 56/79 of 2007-2013, hence, the delay has occasioned, which is, therefore, to be condoned in the interest

of justice. While seeking such condonation of delay, Mr. Dwibedi, learned counsel cited a case law in Abdul Ghafoor & another Vrs. State of Bihar 2012(I) OLR SC 95, wherein, the delay in filing the revision was more than fifteen months. With such submission, the condonation of delay is pleaded.

5. Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State vehemently objects to the condonation of delay of 3,830 days in filing the revision as it is substantial.

6. In Abdul Ghafoor (supra), the Apex Court, while dealing with an SLP and in an identical case, where the delay had taken place in filing the revision and condonation was denied by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act held and observed that law of limitation is intended to allow things to finally settled down after a reasonable time and not to let everyone in a state of uncertainty and in cases of conviction, imposition of sentence of imprisonment, the Court must show far greater indulgence and flexibility in applying the limitation law than any other kind of case as the sentence relates to a person's right to personal liberty, which is one of the most important rights available to an individual and while observing so, it was concluded that the case to be a fit one to condone the delay and set aside the order of the High Court restoring the revision for disposal according to law.

7. Considering the above case law and even though there has been delay of 3,830 days and in view of the fact that the

appeal was disposed of with appointment of an Amicus Curiae even though immediately filed in 2007 with a State Defence Counsel engaged as informed to the Court by Mr. Dwibedi, learned counsel appearing for him, the Court, recording the objection of Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State, is of the humble view that such delay even though substantial should be condoned in the interest of justice at it involves the personal liberty of the petitioner, who has been in custody since 12th May, 2025 with the execution of NBWA having no knowledge about the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 56/79 of 2007-13 on 24th October, 2004.

8. Accordingly, it is ordered.

9. In the result, I.A. stands allowed with the delay being condoned.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

1. Heard Mr. Dwibedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 56/79 of 2007-13 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna confirming the decision in Sessions Case No.2/6 of 2007 of learned CJM-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna on the grounds stated.

3. Considering the facts pleaded on record and submission of Mr. Dwibedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court is inclined to issue notice to the State.

4. Hence, it is ordered.

5. Notice.

6. Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State accepts notice for the State and he is requested to collect the chargesheet and other relevant documents for perusal of the Court on the date fixed. LCR be also called for and Registry is accordingly directed.

7. List on 29th August, 2025 for hearing and orders.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

kabita