State Of Orissa vs Brundaban Akhua And Others ..... ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7214 Ori

Orissa High Court

State Of Orissa vs Brundaban Akhua And Others ..... ... on 26 August, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               CRLLP No.123 of 2004

            State of Orissa                      .....                     Petitioner
                                                             Represented By Adv. -
                                                             Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC

                                          -versus-
            Brundaban Akhua and others               .....         Opposite Parties
                                                              Represented By Adv. -

                                 CORAM:
            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

                                          ORDER

26.08.2025

Order No. CRLLP No.123 of 2004 & Misc. Case No.44 of 2011

06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. The above noted Misc. Case has been filed at the instance of the State-Petitioner for condonation of delay of 295 days in presenting the Criminal Leave Petition.

3. On perusal of the Stamp Reporting, it appears that there is delay of 295 days in presenting the Criminal Leave Petition seeking leave to file a criminal appeal by the State.

4. On perusal of the impugned judgment dated 28.11.2003 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Banki in S.T. Case No.8 of 2002, which arises G.R. Case No.164 of 2000, it can be seen that the trial wherein

the accused persons were facing charges of offences under Sections 323/325/307/34 of the I.P.C., has ended in acquittal of the Opposite Parties-accused persons.

5. On perusal of the application filed by the State- Opposite Party for condonation of delay, this Court found that no proper explanation has been given in such application for condonation of delay. Moreover, although the impugned judgment is of the year 2003, the delay has not been properly explained and it is not appropriate to allow the prayer for condonation after expiry of two decades.

6. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offences and keeping in view the period of delay in preferring the petition and fact that more than two decades have elapsed in the meantime, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay.

7. Accordingly, the Misc. Case stands dismissed. Consequently, the CRLLP also stands dismissed.

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis