Orissa High Court
Rama Narayan Das vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 1 September, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No. 550 of 2025
Rama Narayan Das .... Petitioner
B.C. Parija, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. P.K.Sahoo, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
01.09.2025
Order No. I.A. No.825 of 2025
01. 1. Heard Mr. Parija, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Instant I.A. is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act seeking delay condonation in presenting the revision
beyond the stipulated period.
3. A delay of 103 days is reported as per the S.R.
4. Mr. Parija, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the conducting counsel since expired, the disposal of the
appeal with the judgment as per Annexure-2 was not informed,
hence, the delay. It is further submitted that due to
communication gap between the counsel and the petitioner, the
delay in filing the revision has occasioned, therefore, the same
should be condoned in the interest of justice. An objection is
received from Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State appearing
for the State.
5. Gone through the facts pleaded on record and reason
behind the delay. Considering the submissions of Mr. Parija,
learned counsel for the petitioner and accepting the explanation
offered in filing of the revision towards such delay, the Court is
inclined to condone the delay in the interest of justice as the
petitioner has been convicted for the alleged offences followed
by a judgment i.e. Annexure-1 of the learned Trial Court
upheld in appeal.
6. Accordingly, it is ordered.
7. I.A. stands allowed with the delay of 103 days being
condoned.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
02. 1. Heard Mr. Parija, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State.
2. Instant revision petition is filed against the impugned
judgment i.e. Annexure-2 confirming the order of conviction
for the offences under Sections 341 and 325 read with Section
34 IPC.
3. It is informed to the Court by Mr. Parija, learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in judicial
custody, whereas, the co-accused persons are on bail in view of
the order in Criminal Revision No. 543 of 2025.
4. Considering the facts pleaded on record and grounds
advanced, the Court is inclined to issue notice to the opposite
party State.
5. Hence, it is ordered.
6. Notice.
7. Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State accepts notice for
the opposite party. An extra copy of the revision petition with
annexures is requested to be served on the State.
8. List the matter on 24th September, 2025 along with
CRLREV No. 543 of 2025 for final hearing and orders.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
I.A. Nos.826 & 827 of 2025
03. 1. Heard.
2. Instant I.As. are filed for appropriate orders.
3. It is informed to the Court by Mr. Parija, learned
counsel for the petitioner that after the judgment in appeal, on
the strength of an NBWA issued by the learned court below,
the petitioner has been arrested and in custody from 4th August,
2025. Recorded the objection of Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for
the State.
4. Since the maximum sentence is three years and fine of
Rs. 5,000/- payable by the accused persons and the petitioner
was on bail during trial and pendency of appeal of appeal but
currently in custody on execution of the NBWA issued by the
Court of first instance consequent upon disposal of the appeal
vide Annexure-2, this Court, as an interim measure, recording
the submission of Mr. Parija, learned counsel and objection of
the State, stays the realization of fine amount with a direction to
the learned C.J.M.-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhadrak to
release him on bail in connection with S.T. Case No. 19/35 of
2003 by imposing suitable conditions as considered just and
proper.
5. List on the date fixed for further orders.
6. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
kabita
