State Of Orissa vs Dinabandhu Swain

Savitri Ratho, J

CRLLP No. 58 of 2008 & Misc. Case No. 42 of 2008

This  Misc. Case has been  filed  for  condoning  the delay of 84 days in filing the CRLLP for leave to appeal against the judgment passed on 03.01.2008 in ST Case No. 25/349 of 07-97 and S.T. Case No. 26/94 of 07/98 acquitting opposite parties no.1, 2 and 3 from the offences under Section 395 of the IPC.

Mr. S. S. Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel referring to paragraph 3 of the Misc. Case has submitted that there is a delay of 85 days in filing the appeal on account of movement of the file from the Superintendent of Police, Puri, to the office of the Director, Public Prosecutions, Orissa, Bhubaneswar along with the opinion of the Additional Public Prosecutor, Puri to the office of the learned Advocate General, Orissa, Cuttack, to the learned State Counsel for examining the proposal to the Law Department for necessary approval/sanction and after sanction by the Law Department on 05.05.2008, entrustment of the file to the learned State Counsel for preparation of appeal grounds, time spent for discussion with the concerned officer drafting of the appeal which was ultimately filed on 25.06.2008. He further submits that the delay was not intentional. He has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Raj Singh (D) Tr.Lrs. vrs. Union of India reported in (2023) 10 SCC 531.

Mr. Dinesh Kumar Panda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.4 opposes the Misc. Case for condonation of delay even though he has not filed any written objection. He submits that other than mentioning the dates and Departments/offices where the file has moved, sufficient explanation or cause has not been shown why the delay has occurred or should be condoned. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vrs. Sabha Narain and Others reported in (2022) 9 SCC 266, he submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated the casual manner in which the application has been worded and imposed cost of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner for wasting the judicial time of the Court that the amount be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay in filing the SLP. He further submits that sufficient cause having not been shown, the delay in filing the CRLLP should not be condoned especially since almost 16 years have gone by after the judgment of acquittal has been passed.

Mr. S. Sethi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 opposes the prayer for condonation of delay stating that the delay of 85 days has not been properly explained. He says he will submit a note along with citations on which he relies on.

Though the notice is sufficient on opposite party no.2, no counsel is appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2.

Mr. Bhabani Shankar Mishra, Mr. Manoranjan Mishra, Mr. Pradeep Ranjan Mishra and Mr. Nikunja Kumar Rout have filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.3, but none appears when the matter is called.

List this matter day after tomorrow i.e. 20.03.2024 in order to give one more chance to the learned counsel for the opposite parties no.2 and 3 and Mr. S. Sethi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1 to submit citations.

.……………………………..