Khagapati Nayak vs State Of Orissa .... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 9704 Ori

Orissa High Court

Khagapati Nayak vs State Of Orissa .... Opposite Party on 6 November, 2025

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                            CRLREV No.698 of 2025
             Khagapati Nayak                            ....           Petitioner
                                                        Mr. S. Sahoo, Advocate
                                            -Versus-
             State of Orissa                            ....      Opposite Party
                                                             Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA
                       CORAM:
                      MR. JUSTICER.K. PATTANAIK
                                            ORDER

06.11.2025 I.A. No.1062 of 2025 Order No.

02. 1. Heard Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State.

2. Instant petition is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in presenting the revision.

3. A delay of 3429 days is reported as per the SR.

4. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay which has occasioned in presenting the revision is due to ignorance and communication lapse and since the petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 376 IPC and presently in custody, such delay should be condoned in the interest of justice.

5. Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State seriously objects to the condonation of delay as the same is inordinate.

6. The petitioner claimed to have no knowledge about the impugned judgment in Criminal Trial No.41 of 2012 disposed of on 2nd November, 2012. Recording the objection of the State, even though, the delay is substantial, since the petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 376 IPC, accepting explanation offered by him towards the delay, the Court is inclined to condone the same in order to enable him to pursue the revision for its disposal on merit.

7. Accordingly, the I.A. stands allowed with the delay being condoned.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

1. Heard.

2. Instant revision is filed challenging the impugned judgment in Criminal Trial No.41 of 2012 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Koraput followed by a judgment of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Vigilance, Jeypore in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2013 disposed of on 1 st November, 2013.

3. Considering the plea advanced and the grounds stated, the Court is inclined to direct the State to respond.

4. For a final hearing and orders, list on 4th December, 2025 and in the meantime, the LCR be called for. Registry

shall do the needful to ensure early transmission and receipt to the LCR by this Court well before the next date fixed.

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Rojina

Designation: Junior Stenographer