Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa vs Damadara Dash ..... Opposite Party on 14 October, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP No.60 of 2012
State of Orissa ..... Petitioner
Represented By Sr.Adv.
-Mr. S.Das
-versus-
Damadara Dash ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
M/s.rabi Narayan
Mohanty A.k.majhi
A.swain
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 14.10.2025
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. S.Das, learned Senior Counsel for the Vigilance
Department. Perused the application as well as the prayer made
therein.
3. By filing the present application under Section 378(1)(3)
the prosecution seeks leave to prefer an appeal against the
judgment of acquittal dated 2nd December, 2010 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Jeypore in G.R. Case No.32 of
2008 which corresponds to T.R. Case No.39 of 2009. The
abovenoted G.R. case was registered for alleged commission of
a crime punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) and 7
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. The factual background of the case as is evident from the
judgment is that the accused-Opposite Parties was implicated in
a case of demanding of bribe to the tune of Rs.500/- . It is
alleged that the accused, who was working as a Field Officer of
Utkal Gramya Bank, had taken Rs.500/- as illegal gratification to
provide a loan waiving certificate. Accordingly, the fact was
intimated to the Vigilance Department. Thereafter, the present
case has been registered in implicating the Opposite parties as
accused.
5. The learned trial court, in course of trial, examined several
witnesses and documentary evidence. The complainant in this
case was examined as P.W.-1 and the overriding witness was
examined as P.W.-2. At the end of trial, the learned trial court on
a careful analysis of the materials on record as well as the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses has come to a conclusion
that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against
the Opposite Party-accused, which is evident from Para-8 of the
judgment of the learned trial court. On perusal of the analysis of
the learned trial court in Para-8 of the judgment, this Court is of
the view that the same is based on record and that the trial court
has not committed any illegality in arriving at such a conclusion.
On careful analysis of the impugned judgment as well as the
surrounding facts and circumstances, further taking note of the
fact that the judgment of the acquittal was pronounced on
02.10.2010 and the leave application has been listed for hearing
in the year 2025, i.e. after more than one and half decades, this
Court is not inclined to allow the leave application. Accordingly,
the leave application is dismissed.
6. Additionally, it is found that there exists a delay of 399
days in preferring this appeal. Records reveal that such delay has
also not been condoned. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this
Court is not inclined to condone the delay. The appeal stands
dismissed on the delay ground.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
