This single-bench order dismissed a miscellaneous application for condonation of delay in preferring a Criminal Leave to Appeal due to insufficient grounds and lack of substantial and compelling reasons, ultimately dismissing the appeal itself.
The IA for condonation of delay is dismissed; consequently, the CRLLP is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRLLP No.8 of 2019
02. 16.11.2020 CRLLP No.8 of 2019 and I.A. No.8 of 2019
This matter is taken up through Video conferencing because of COVID-19 pandemic.
Heard Mrs. Saswata Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate.
This I.A. has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in preferring the CRLLP.
We have carefully examined the averments made by the Inspector-In-Charge, Motonga Police Station in the district of Dhenkanal in the application for condonation of delay. There is a delay of 91 days in preferring the CRLLP.
We are satisfied that the grounds taken in the I.A. are not sufficient to condone the delay in preferring the CRLLP. We have also not found any substantial and compelling reason to grant leave to appeal.
Hence, the I.A. for condonation of delay in preferring the CRLLP is dismissed.
Consequently, the CRLLP is dismissed.
As restrictions due to COVID-19 are continuing, learned counsel for both the parties may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.
……………………….. S. K. Mishra, J.
TUDU
….……………………….
Savitri Ratho, J.
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the grounds taken by the applicant are sufficient to condone a delay of 91 days in preferring the CRLLP under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S. K. Mishra
Savitri Ratho
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
