Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa vs Benudhar Subudhi & Another ... Opposite ... on 7 May, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP No. 42 of 2004
State of Orissa ... Petitioner
Mr. S. Das, SC (Vigilance)
-versus-
Benudhar Subudhi & Another ... Opposite Parties
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER(ORAL)
07.05.2025
CRLLP No. 42 of 2004 & M.C. No. 23 of 2004
Order No.
08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). The criminal
leave petition against OP No.2 Sarat Chandra Sahu
stands abated in view of his death. This proceeding is
only confined against respondent-OP Benudhar
Subudhi.
2. This application in M.C. No. 23 of 2004 U/S.
5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by the Petitioner-State
prays to condone the delay of 886 days in seeking
leave to prefer criminal appeal against the order of
acquittal of surviving respondent-OP.
3. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel
(Vig.) submits that the delay in this case was neither
intentional nor deliberate, rather the State was
prevented by sufficient cause in not filing leave
petition in time due to consultative process with the
Officers assigned in the matter and therefore, the
delay in preferring the petition for leave to appeal
may kindly be condoned. Further, Mr. Das also
submits on merit that the order of acquittal had been
passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the OPs-
respondents for commission of offence punishable
U/S.5(1)(c)/5(2) of the P.C. Act r/w. Sections 120-
B/471/477-A of IPC and the judgment having not
been passed in proper appreciation of evidence
resulting in perversity warranting interference by this
Court by way of grant of leave to appeal. On the
aforesaid submissions, Mr.Das prays to condone the
delay in admitting the petition for grant of leave to
appeal.
4. Admittedly, there is a delay of 886 days, but
the petitioner-State contends that the delay is due to
consultative process which prevented the State to
prefer the petition for grant of leave to appeal in
time, however, this petition for leave to appeal has
been filed way back in 2004 seeking grant of leave to
challenge the acquittal of the OP-respondent as
recorded by learned Special Judge (Vigilance),
Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.54 of 1989 by
recording the judgment way back on 29.09.2001 and
in the meanwhile, around 24 years have passed.
Delay for sometime may be due to certain reasons,
but overturning an acquittal of a person after a gap
24 years and putting such person to the rigmarole of
the proceeding in an appeal against acquittal may not
be in the interest of the justice. Further, even if the
delay is condoned, the surviving OP-respondent has
to be noticed and the further process has to be
followed.
5. Even otherwise, examining the impugned
judgment on merit, it appears that the impugned
judgment has been passed on 29.09.2001 and the
occurrence took place for the period 1980-82, but the
surviving respondent-OP was aged about 69 years as
on the date of judgment and right now he would be
more than 90 years. Thus, he would be enjoying
retirement life and at this time, granting leave to
appeal against acquittal of surviving respondent-OP
by condoning huge delay without sufficient cause
would be putting the process back to the harassment
of such person without any justification. This Court
does not find any perversity or illegality in the
judgment of acquittal so as to warrant interference by
this Court. Even otherwise, if the delay is condoned,
the process of appeal against acquittal has to be
followed, which would otherwise become a futile
exercise in view of the fact that the impugned
judgment of acquittal has been found on sound
appreciation of evidence. Once an order of
acquittal has been recorded, it should not be
interfered lightly inasmuch as in such event, the
presumption of innocence of the accused is re-
inforced and therefore, unless there is compelling
reason, the order of acquittal should not be
overturned merely because some other view is
possible on re-appreciation of evidence.
6. Moreover, the plea of consultative process as
advanced for the petitioner-State as a ground for delay
does not stand to the scrutiny of law which is apparent
from the following observation of the Apex Court in
Post Master General and others Vrs. Living Media
India Ltd. and another; (2012) 3 SCC 563:-
"29. In our view, it is the right time to inform
all the Government bodies, their agencies and
instrumentalities that unless they have
reasonable and acceptable explanation for the
delay and there was bona fide effort, there is
no need to accept their usual explanation that
the file was kept pending for several months/
years due to considerable degree of procedural
red tape in the process. The Government
Departments are under a special obligation to
ensure that they perform their duties with
diligence and commitment. Condonation of
delay is an exception and should not be used
as an anticipated benefit for the Government
Department. The law shelters everyone under
the same light and should not be swirled for
the benefit of a few."
7. In view of the aforesaid discussions and
facts, neither the State has made out/shown
sufficient cause for condonation of delay nor has any
merit for grant of leave to prefer an appeal against
the acquittal of the respondent-OP after a gap of 24
years.
8. In the result, the present CRLLP & M.C.
No.23 of 2004 stand dismissed and the leave to
appeal is refused to the petitioner.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
S.Sasmal
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 09-May-2025 16:14:17
