IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.137 of 2011 State Of Orissa ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Addl.standing Counsel -versus-

Surendra Nayak & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. -

Gyanaloka Mohanty A.p.mishra CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR THE HON’BLE MOHAPATRA

ORDER

08.12.2025 Order No.

04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/

Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the State-Petitioner as well as Mr. A.Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party Nos.1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 & 13.

3. On perusal of the office note, it appears that the Opposite Party No.3 has expired in the meantime. Hence, his name be deleted from the cause title.

4. Misc.case No.6 of 2016 has been filed at the instance of the Petitioner with a prayer for condonation of delay of 177 days in the presentation of this leave application.

5. Learned counsel for the State at the outset contended that the delay of 177 days is not due to any latches or negligence on the part of the State-Petitioner. The grounds of delay has been explained in the body of the condonation of delay application. Referring to the condonation of delay application, learned counsel for the State contended that there was a delay in getting the opinion and sanction of the authorities to prefer an appeal against the judgment of the acquittal. Due to such procedural requirement there was a delay in the presentation of this leave application before this Court. Finally, after obtaining the sanction the application has been presented before this Court on 22.12.2011 with a delay of 177 days.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-Opposite Parties on the other hand objected to the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the delay has not been properly explained. He further submitted that although this application has been filed challenging judgment dated 30.03.2011 and this very leave application was presented on 22.12.2011, however, the same was not accompanied by any application for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay was filed only on 08.01.2016, as is evident from the record. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties contended that the limitation continues to run till the time the application for condonation of delay is presented before this Court. Therefore, it was alleged by the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties that there exists several years of delay and the same remaining unexplained in the application for condoned of delay.

7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the both sides. Perused the records as well as the impugned judgment dated 30.03.2011. While dealing with the limitation issue, this Court found that initially there was a delay of 177 days to present the application seeking leave from this Court. Thereafter, the limitation application for condonation of delay was filed on 08.01.2016. As such the limitation would continue to run till the time the application for condonation of delay is filed. The aforesaid position of law is well settled and the same cannot be disputed by either of the parties. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court found that there exists several years of delay in the presentation of the application seeking leave to prefer an appeal. As such, this Court is not inclined to condone such long delay which is made unexplained. Moreover, on perusal of the impugned judgment and upon a close scrutiny of the grounds taken in the leave application, this Court found no infirmity in judgment dated 30.03.2011 against which the Petitioner seeks leave to prefer an appeal. The judgment of the learned trial court is a detailed judgment which has been passed taking into consideration the entire evidence placed before the learned trial court.

8. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is not inclined to grant leave to prefer appeal. Accordingly, both the limitation petition as well as the leave application stand dismisse