Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa vs Narasingha Adhikari on 18 September, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLLP No.25 of 2006
State of Orissa ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Sangram Das, Senior
Advocate
-versus-
Narasingha Adhikari ..... Respondent
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
18.08.2025
Order No.
06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel appearing
for the Vigilance Department-Petitioner. Perused the application as
well as the prayer made therein.
3. The present application has been filed under Section 378(1) &
(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer for grant of
leave to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated
12.09.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance),
Berhampur, Ganjam in G.R. Case No.16 of 1996 (V)/T.R. No.92 of
1998(V) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section
13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
4. The accused-Opposite Party faced trial on the basis of the
Vigilance F.I..R. dated 12.03.1996 for the alleged misconduct of
demanding of bribe of Rs.5,000/- for adjusting the wife of the
Complainant and other lady teacher in the regular vacancy in the
Primary School under the Jeypore Municipality. On the basis of the
aforesaid allegation, investigation was carried out and finally a
charge sheet was filed. Thereafter, the Petitioner faced trial and vide
judgment dated 12.09.2005, the learned trial court has acquitted the
present Petitioner. Being aggrieved by such judgment of acquittal,
the Vigilance Department has filed this application seeking leave to
prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal.
5. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
Vigilance Department-Petitioner), at the outset, argued that the
judgment of acquittal is erroneous and that the learned Special Judge
(Vigilance), Berhampur, Ganjam has not taken note of the materials
on record while passing the judgment. In course of his argument,
learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department-Petitioner
relied upon the Ground No.5, 6 & 8 of the petition.
6. On perusal of the aforesaid grounds, this Court is of the
considered view that the same are not good grounds to grant leave to
prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal. This is more so,
as this application is being listed more than two decades after the
judgment of acquittal was pronounced by the Special Judge
(Vigilance), Berhampur, Ganjam.
7. At the time of filing of the leave application, the Opposite
Party was aged about 65 years. In the meantime, two decades have
been passed. It is known as to whether the Opposite Party still alive
or not.
8. In the aforesaid factual background, this Court is of the
considered view that granting leave to prefer an appeal against the
judgment of acquittal would be an injustice to the Opposite Party.
Moreover, even on merits, this Court did not find any strong grounds
for which the Petitioner be granted leave to prefer an appeal.
9. It further appears that although the present appeal was filed in
the year 2006 and notice was issued to the Opposite Party for
condonation of delay vide order dated 12.10.2007, however, the
delay has not been condoned as of now.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is also liable to be dismissed on the
ground of limitation.
11. Accordingly, the CRLLP stands dismissed.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
