[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Dillip Kumar Mallik vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 13 March, 2026
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.29 of 2026
(In the matter of an application under Section 401 read
with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
corresponding to Section 442 read with Section 438 of the
BNSS.)
Dillip Kumar Mallik .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. T. Nanda, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. A.K. Pati, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF HEARING :10.03.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13.03.2026
V. Narasingh, J.
1. This Criminal Revision has been filed
assailing the Judgment dated 19.12.2025 passed by
the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge,
Patnagarh in Criminal Appeal No.05/2025, affirming
the order of conviction dated 11.08.2025 of the
Petitioner passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Patnagarh,
Balangir in G.R. Case No.290 of 2004 under Section
417 IPC and sentencing the Petitioner to undergo R.I.
for one year with a fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten
Thousand only), while acquitting him of the charges
under Sections 493 and 506 IPC.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
24.09.2004 the informant, a poor and fatherless girl,
lodged a written report before the Officer-in-Charge
of Belpada P.S., Balangir, alleging that the accused,
who was her neighbour, developed a love relationship
with her on the promise of marriage and maintained
physical relations with her, as a result of which she
became pregnant and was about eight months
pregnant at the time of lodging of the FIR. When the
matter came to the knowledge of her mother and
brother, they requested the accused and his father to
accept her as their daughter-in-law, but the father of
the accused refused. On the basis of the said report,
Belpada P.S. Case No.62 of 2004 was registered and,
upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted against the accused under Sections 417,
506 and 493 IPC.
3. The case of the defense was one of
complete denial and false implication.
4. To drive home the charge, the prosecution
examined seven witnesses, of whom P.W.1, the
informant/victim, P.W.2, mother of the informant,
P.W.3, the informant's brother, P.W.6, cousin of the
informant are the material witnesses and several
documents were exhibited and marked as Exts.1 and
1/1, out of which Ext.1, being the FIR, and Ext.1/1,
being the signature of P.W.1 on FIR, are of
significance.
Defence evidence was adduced by examining
independent witnesses as D.Ws.1 to 3.
5. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner
and learned counsel for the State.
6. On consideration of the evidence on record
and the documents, the learned Trial Court convicted
the accused Petitioner under Section 417 IPC and
directed to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a
fine of Rs.10,000/-.
On appeal being preferred, while confirming the
order of conviction and sentence, the learned
Appellate Court did not extend the benefit of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred
to as 'P.O. Act') to the Petitioner, inter alia, on the
ground that the Petitioner was not a minor and
therefore no leniency ought to be shown. The said
judgment is assailed in the present criminal revision.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.
Nanda, submits that in view of the evidence on
record, he does not want to assail the conviction on
merit, but submits that the reasoning for non-
extension of the P.O. Act can be interfered with by
this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
8. This Court finds substance in the
submission made by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner, in as much as there is no finding in the
impugned order that the Petitioner has any criminal
proclivity while rejecting the prayer for extension of
the benefit under the P.O. Act.
Considering the factual matrix of the case, in
the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Chellammal and Anr. V. State
represented by the Inspector of Police, 2025
SCC OnLine SC 870, this Court is inclined to direct
the release of the Petitioner on Probation under
Section 4 of the P.O. Act, on conditions to be settled
by the Trial Court.
9. It is further directed that the Petitioner
shall be liable to pay compensation of Rs.5000/-,
which he undertakes to deposit within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
Judgment.
In the event of default in payment of the said
amount, appropriate action shall be taken in
accordance with the procedure laid down under
Section 5 of the P.O. Act.
10. In this context, it is apposite to note that
under Section 5(2) of the Probation of Offenders Act,
in the event of default in payment of the amount
ordered under Section 5(1) of the said Act, the
amount shall be recovered as a fine in accordance
with the provisions of Sections 386 and 387 of the
Code.
11. It is further clarified that the "Code"
referred to herein denotes the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1898, which corresponds to Sections 461
and 462 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (earlier Sections 421 and 422 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973).
12. The Criminal Revision along with I.As, if
any, stand disposed of.
13. The bail bond(s) stand cancelled and
sureties are discharged.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 13th March, 2026/Santoshi
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
