Orissa High Court
Sarat Ch. Mohapatra vs Bhikari Sahoo And Others ..... Opp. ... on 22 October, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP No.125 of 2009
Sarat Ch. Mohapatra ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. N.P. Parija
-versus-
Bhikari Sahoo and others ..... Opp. Parties
Represented By Adv. -
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
22.10.2025
Order No.
8. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. Parija, learned counsel for the Petitioner
contended that notices were issued to the Opposite Parties and the
same has been made sufficient against Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 6.
However, none appears for Opposite Parties. Opposite Party No.7
who is dead has already been deleted from record. Similarly, notice
to Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 has been made sufficient vide order
dated 13.07.2011 of the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
Therefore, notice has been duly served on the Opposite Party Nos.
1 to 6 except Opposite Party No.7 who is dead and whose name has
been deleted from the record. Despite valid service of notice, none
appears on behalf of Opposite Party nos. 1 to 6. By filing the
present application under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., the Petitioner,
who was the victim-complainant in ICC Case No.50 of 2001, has
approached this Court for grant of leave to prefer an appeal against
the judgment of acquittal dated 28.10.2009 passed by the learned
JMFC, Salipur, Cuttack. Above noted ICC Case was instituted at
the instance of the complainant-petitioner for commission of an
offence under sections 427/506 of IPC. On perusal of the factual
aspect of the matter it appears that the complaint case was
registered on the allegation of illegal cutting and theft of bamboo
from the field which stands recorded on the name of the
complainant-petitioner. The learned trial Court upon conclusion of
the trial acquitted the Opposite Parties-accused persons. Aggrieved
by such order of acquittal the Petitioner preferred this leave
application seeking leave to prefer an appeal.
3. At the outset, this Court upon careful consideration, found
that the Petitioner can very well be termed as a victim as defined
under section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The
word 'victim' has been defined as a person who has suffered loss or
injury caused by the act or omission for which the accused person
has been charged and the expression victim includes his or her
guardian or legal heir. Applying the aforesaid definition to the case
of the Complainant-Petitioner, this Court found that the petitioner-
complainant has suffered loss and injury caused by the accused
persons by their act of cutting and taking away of the bamboo.
This Court further observes that the Cr.P.C. was amended in the
year 2009, particularly section 372 thereof, by Act 5 of 2009 w.e.f.
31.12.2009. By virtue of the proviso to section 372 a right has been
conferred upon the victim to prefer an appeal against any order of
acquittal and such appeal shall lie to Court to which any appeal
ordinary lies against the order of conviction of such Court. In view
of the aforesaid legal provision, this Court is of the view that the
complainant being a victim can very well prefer an appeal under the
proviso to section 372 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, no leave is
required under section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.
4. In view of the aforesaid position, the present application is
being disposed of by granting permission to the Petitioner to prefer
an appeal under the proviso to section 372 Cr.P.C. before the
appropriate Appellate Court. In event the Petitioner prefers such an
appeal along with an application for condonation of delay, the
learned Appellate Court shall consider such delay by taking a
lenient view and further taking into consideration the fact that the
Petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing the leave
application which was pending since 16.11.2009 till the same was
disposed of by the present order.
5. With the aforesaid direction, the CRLLP stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Sisir
Designation: Personal Assistant
