State vs Subhendu S.Das ..... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 10371 Ori

Orissa High Court

State vs Subhendu S.Das ..... Opposite Party on 24 November, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              CRLLP No.33 of 2011
            State                       .....         Petitioner
                                                             Represented By Adv. -
                                                             None

                                          -versus-
            Subhendu S.das                           .....           Opposite Party
                                                              Represented By Adv. -

                                                              None

                                 CORAM:
                  MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

                                         ORDER

24.11.2025 Order No.

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

2. None appears for the respective parties.

3. On Perusal of the record it appears that the present leave application has been filed under Section 378(5) of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of the State of Odisha (Vigilance) seeking leave to prefer an appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 14.05.2010 in T.R. Case No.93 of 1999 which arises out of G.R. Case No.68 of 1999 corresponds to Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.30 dated 29.05.1998.

4. Record reveals that the present leave application was presented before this Court on 28.03.2011with a delay of 228 days. However without any accompaning application for condonation of delay. By order dated 29.07.2011, this Court directed for issuance of notice, however the requisites were not filed for several years

thereafter. Again on 08.05.2015 time was granted to file requisites for issuance of notice. Time was again granted on 30.06.2015. In the meantime, Mr. Sangram Das entered appearance for the Vigilance Department on 11.09.2015. The last order of the office dated 11.09.2025 reveals that till date the requisites have not been filed for issuance of notice to the sole Opposite Party by registered post with AD as directed by this Court more than a decade ago. The Stamp Report reveals that there is delay of 228 days in preferring this leave application.

5. In view of the aforesaid fact, this Court is not inclined to consider the application for condonation of delay. Hence, the same is dismissed. As a consequential therefore, the leave application is also dismissed.

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

Sisir

Designation: Personal Assistant