[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa vs Tarini Patro ..... Opp. Party on 11 December, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP No.33 of 2012
State of Orissa ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.Sangram Das,
Standing Counsel for the
Vigilance Department
-versus-
Tarini Patro ..... Opp. Party
Represented By Adv. -
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
11.12.2025
Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard Shri Sangram Das, learned Standing counsel for the
Vigilance Department-Petitioner. Perused the application as well as
the prayer made therein.
3. By filing the present application under Section 378 of the
Cr.P.C the Petitioner seeks leave to prefer an appeal against
judgment dated 11.05.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Vigilance, Balasore in T.R No.335 of 2007 which arises out of
VGR No.18 of 1996 for commission of an offence punishable
under Sections 13(2)/ 13(1)(d) and 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
4. On perusal of the record, it appears that the Opposite Party
No.2, who faced the trial as an accused, was allegedly caught red-
handed while taking a bribe for Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred),
out of a total sum of Rs.300/- (Rupees three hundred) promised, to
give a favourable report as Revenue Inspector. Accordingly, the
Opposite Party faced trial in the abovenoted vigilance case. Finally,
by virtue of the judgment dated 11.05.2011, the Opposite Party has
been acquitted by the learned trial court. The prosecution has failed
to prove the charges levelled against the accused. Accordingly, he
was not held guilty of the charges brought against him.
Challenging the aforesaid judgment of acquittal, the Petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the present leave petition mainly on
the grounds that the learned court below should have taken into
account the statement of the witnesses P.W.1, 2, 3 and 7, and, such
evidence has not been considered by the learned trial court on the
ground that there exists contradiction in such evidence. Learned
counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that the
evidence of such witnesses are material evidence and the same has
been tossed aside by the learned trial court on the ground of some
minor inconsistencies. On such ground, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has very good grounds to
succeed in the appeal and, accordingly, the leave should be
granted.
5. On further verification, this Court found that the present
leave application was filed on 15.03.2012 along with an
application for condonation of delay, the Stamp Report reveals that
there was a delay of 219 days in presentation of the leave
application. Although an application has been filed for condonation
of delay, no steps have been taken for such condonation of delay.
Further, order dated 22.02.2013 reveals that no requisites have
filed for issuance of notice to the Opposite Party.
6. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned judgment, further
taking note of the submissions made by Mr.Das, learned Standing
Counsel for the Vigilance Department as well as the grounds,
specifically the ground No.5 raised in the application, further
keeping in view the fact that there exists a delay of 219 days and
the same has not been condoned, this Court, at this belated stage, is
not inclined to grant leave to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal.
7. Accordingly, the leave application stands dismissed.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 12-Dec-2025 18:58:16
