State Of Orissa vs Jayakrushna ..... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 11605 Ori

Orissa High Court

State Of Orissa vs Jayakrushna ..... Opposite Party on 22 December, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              CRLLP No.89 of 2013
            State of Orissa             .....         Petitioner
                                                              Represented by Adv. -
                                                              Addl.standing Counsel

                                            -versus-
            Jayakrushna        .....                                   Opposite Party
            Pusty
                                       Represented by Adv. - M/s.alok Kumar
                                       Mohapatra,a.k.dash,b.panda,s.mohapatra,s.samal,t.
                                       dash,s.p.mangaraj,s.k.barik,t.kumar

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

                                        ORDER

22.12.2025 Misc.case No.65 of 2013 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 the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-accused.

3. The Misc.case has been filed at the instance of the State- Petitioner with a prayer for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Perused the application.

4. The present leave application has been filed at the instance of the State-Petitioner under Section 378(1)(3) of the Cr.P.C. challenging the judgement/order of acquittal dated 19.09.2008 passed in S.T Case No.5/175 of 2007 by the Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Baripada, Myurbhanj which arises out of G.R. Case

No.86 of 2007 and corresponds to Udala P.S. Case No.28 of 2007 for commission of an offence punishable under Section 498A, 302 of I.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that as reported by the stamp reporter there exists a delay of 1652 days in the presentation of the leave application. Perused the stamp report as well as the application filed for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay has been filed principally on the ground that due to some administrative reasons delay was falsely preparation on file of the appeal memo. Although such grounds have been mentioned in the body of the application, however, this Court is not completely satisfied with regard to take explanation given by the State-Petitioner. It is also the settled position of law that in the matter of delay, the party who is seeking condonation of delay is required to explain each day of delay. On an overall assessment of the application for condonation of delay this Court observes that principally on the ground of administrative hassles the leave petition was filed with inordinate delay. No doubt such delay can be fatal, however, the same is to be considered in light of the nature and gravity of the offence alleged. In the instant case the Opposite Parties, as the accused, faced trial for commission of offence under Sections 498A and 302 of I.P.C.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, on a careful consideration of the grounds taken in the Misc.case for condonation of delay, further taking into consideration the seriousness and gravity of the allegation as well as the materials available on record, which has allegedly not been considered by the learned trial court, this Court deems it proper to

condone the delay and to hear the appeal preferred by the State against the judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, the delay of 1652 days in the presentation of the leave application is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.3000/- to the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite party. Let the cost be paid within four weeks and the acknowledgement of such payment be filed before this Court by the next date.

7. List this matter in the week commencing 2nd February, 2026. In the meantime, a copy of the CRLLP application be served on the learned counsel for the Opposite Party.

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

Rubi