Orissa High Court
Global Aqua vs State Of Odisha & Another .... Opposite ... on 25 November, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.643 of 2025
Global Aqua, Kolkata .... Petitioner
Mr. H.N. Mohapatra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC
Mr. Manoranjan Muduli, Advocate for O.P. No.2
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
25.11.2025
I.A. No.962 of 2025
Order No.
01. 1. Heard.
2. Instant petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is
filed for condonation of delay.
3. The delay of 1316 days is reported by the S.R.
4. The plea of ignorance by the petitioner under the
impression that the appeal is pending before the learned Court
below is the cause and reason shown towards the delay seeking
condonation of the same. Recorded the submission of Mr.
Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Accepting the
explanation offered and recording the objection of Mr. Muduli,
learned counsel for opposite party No.2, the Court is of the
view that the petitioner, since has been convicted for an offence
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the delay in filling the
revision should be condoned in the interest of justice.
5. The I.A. is accordingly allowed with the delay being
condoned.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
02. 1. Heard Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. In fact, Mr. Muduli, learned counsel and his associates
for opposite party No.2 filed the Vakalatnama today, which is
accepted and taken on record followed by a direction to reflect
his name on the cause list and brief henceforth.
3. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the
impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No.04 of 2019
confirming the order of conviction and sentence awarded in
1.C.C. No.3570 of 2010 on the grounds stated.
4. The petitioner has been directed to undergo sentence of
four months and to pay sum of Rs.20 lac with a default
sentence of three months SI.
5. Considering the plea of the petitioner and the grounds
stated in the revision petition, the Court is inclined to consider
the response of opposite party No.2.
6. Hence, it is ordered.
7. List on 8th January, 2026 for final hearing and orders.
8. Call for the LCR for final hearing and orders.
9. Registry is directed to ensure transmission of the LCR
from the learned Court below so as to reach this Court well
before the next date of listing.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
03. 1. The I.A. is disposed of as the same has become
infructuous.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
I.A. Nos. 963 and 1370 of 2025
04. 1. Heard.
2. Instant I.As. are filed by the petitioner for release of the
petitioner on bail and stay realization of the compensation
amount awarded by the learned Courts below.
3. In course of hearing, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the petitioner's
son is fixed to 5th December, 2025 and on such ground, his
release on bail is pleaded for. A copy of the marriage invitation
card is at Annexure-A to the I.A. It is further submitted that the
petitioner is in custody since 16th November, 2025 after
execution of NBWA issued by the court of first instance.
4. Mr. Muduli, learned counsel for opposite party No.2
objects to the release of the petitioner on bail on account of the
alleged default in repayment the full amount. In reply to the
above, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit an
amount of Rs.1 lac, as he has already made statutory deposit
before the learned Court below. Considering the above facts
and since the marriage of the petitioner's son to be held
recently, this Court, as an interim measure, directs his release
on bail with suitable conditions imposed subject to payment of
Rs.1 lac and release of the statutory amount deposited before
the Court of appeal to and in favour of opposite party No.2.
5. List on the date fixed for further orders.
6. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules and
in course of the day.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Balaram
