Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha vs Sampati Pani on 23 June, 2025
Author: M.S. Sahoo
Bench: M.S. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP NO.7 OF 2022
State of Odisha .... Appellant
Mr. Debaraj Mohanty,
Addl. Government Advocate
-versus-
Sampati Pani .... Respondent
Mr. S.K. Dash, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
ORDER
23.06.2025
I.A. No.6 of 2022
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This petition is presented by the State after brooking delay of 240
days seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal order dated 10.03.2021.
The opp. party-accused was prosecuted for the heinous offences
punishable under Section 376 (2)(n) IPC read with Section 6 of POCSO
Act. There being delay, an application supported by an affidavit is
moved seeking its condonation.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that in matters
of the kind ordinarily delay is approached with bit leniency and it is more
so when offences involved are heinous. He also submits that there is
some merits in this petition, which may eventually turn to be an appeal,
should leave be granted. Lastly, he submits that non-condonation of
delay will result into an affirmation of acquittal order, which will not be
in the best interest of the administration of criminal justice in the State.
At para-6 of the application affidavit, the ground of Covid-19 is also
pressed into service. He cites a decision of the apex Court, wherein it is
held that Covid-19 Pandemic to be treated as suspending run of the Law
of Limitation period pro tanto.
4. Learned counsel appearing for opp. party-accused vehemently
opposes the application for condonation of delay placing reliance on two
decisions, one of which is rendered by the High Court of Karnataka in
W.P.(C) No.11273 of 2024 (GM-DRT) between Kailasam P and The
Karnataka Bank Ltd. and the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in CRLLP No.92 of 2013 disposed of on 18.2.2021. He also
submits that delay is long and acquittal order of the kind ordinarily not
loosely interfered by condoning the same.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused
the appeal papers and also having adverted to the decisions cited above,
we are inclined to grant an order for condonation of delay for the
following reasons:
a) Firstly, the delay has to be viewed leniently in matters like this,
which involved acquittal of the accused for heinous offences, more
particularly, when they are against women.
b) Secondly, the condonation of delay does not add extra merit to the
case of petitioner against the interest of the opp.party-accused. What
would happen is that the main matter would be heard on merits, if delay
is condoned.
c) Thirdly, Covid-19 Pandemic is treated in all civilized jurisdiction
in the World as a ground entitling the litigant to the reprieve. Some
Courts have held that such a pandemic is a vis major.
d) Fourthly, a plausible explanation is offered in the application
supported by the affidavit seeking condonation of delay.
6. The first decision of Karnataka High Court banked upon by
learned counsel appearing for opp. party-accused is rendered in a civil
matter and therefore may not be of much precedential value for a case
arising out of criminal jurisprudence. The second decision of the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court involved a case having delay of 439 days,
whereas in this it is much less than that. After all, judgments on
condonation of delay or non-condonation are not treated as having
precedential value, subject to all just exceptions.
In the above circumstances, application is favoured and delay is
condoned subject to petitioner presenting to the Orissa High Court
Advocates' Bar Association Library a book, namely," Roses in
December" by M.C. Chagla.
The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.
(Dixit Krishna Shripad)
Judge
(M.S. Sahoo)
Judge
GDS
Designation: JOINT REGISTRAR-CUM-PRINCIPAL
