Advocates:
['BISHWA RANJAN SAHU', '', 'S SAMAL', 'D R SAHOO', 'M/S ANUPAM DASH', 'DK PATRA']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLREV NO. 289 OF 2021

Manoj Kumar Sahu

&.

Petitioner

Mr.B.R.Sahu, Advocate

-versus-

M/s Maa Tarini Coal

Suppliers

&.Opposite Party

Mr.Anupam Dash, Advocate

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

Order

No.

ORDER

02.02.2022

01

1. This matter is taken up by virtual mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3.The petitioner in this revision has challenged the legality and

propriety of the order dated 09.01.2020 passed by learned Ist

Additional Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada in Criminal

Appeal No.41 of 2015 (arising out of I.C.C. Case No.110 of

2013).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

had preferred the aforesaid appeal against the conviction of S.I.

for one year and compensation to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/- in

I.C.C. Case No.110 of 2013 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.,

Baripada on 30.04.2015. The petition was filed under Section

311 of Cr.P.C. to recall and re-examine the complainant to

check the veracity of certain documents after closure of the

accused statement, and for furnishing other documents relevant

to the transaction of the cheque in the concerned bank.

However, the trial court did not receive the documents and

directed to return back the said petition as the case was already

posted for judgment. Being aggrieved by the said order, he filed

// 2 //

Page 2 of 3

a petition under section-391 of Cr.P.C. for adducing further

evidence before the appellate court. It was also dismissed by the

said appellate court on the ground that the petition under Section

391 Cr.P.C. has been filed at a belated stage i.e. four years after

the filing of the criminal appeal. Hence the petitioner has

approached this court by way of this criminal revision.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the

petitioner had filed the petition under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. at

the belated stage of hearing of the appeal for adducing further

evidence. This is nothing but protracting the hearing of the

appeal by taking different pleas since the year 2015 i.e. after

four years of filing of appeal.

6. On perusal of the entire case records including the materials

available on it, more particularly the orders of both the courts

below, it is found that the petitioner has filed the petition under

Section 391 Cr.P.C. at the belated stage i.e. four years after the

filing of appeal. This was done with the sole motive of

unnecessarily delaying the proceedings of the Court. Section

391 Cr.P.C. can only be invoked under exigencies andspecial

circumstances, but not in ordinary course of hearing. The

petitioner has been very casual in filing the application. Thus,

the Court cannot entertain such application.

7. In view of above, I am not inclined to interfere with the order

passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada,

Mayurbhanj

8. The Criminal Revision is accordingly dismissed.

// 3 //

Page 3 of 3

9.As the restrictions due to resurgence of Covid-19 are

continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout

of the order available in the High Court9s website, at par with

certified copy, subject to attestation by the Advocate

concerned with his/her seal, in the manner prescribed vide

Court9s Office Order dated 7^th January, 2022.

(S.K.Panigrahi)

Judge

LB