Dismissed

Chitrasen Bhoi v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC2 Sept 2023JCRLA/82/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In proceedings under JCRLA No.82 of 2022 arising from a conviction under Section 302 IPC, the Calcutta High Court examined a petition seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The court rejected the appellant's explanation of a bona fide belief that an appeal was already lodged, finding the delay excessive and the excuses unsatisfactory. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as barred by

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed for being barred by limitation due to excessive delay.

Chitrasen Bhoi Vs State of Odisha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK JCRLA No.82 of 2022

¶2

Chitrasen Bhoi

¶3

…. Appellant

¶4

Mr. Saroj Kumar Routray, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Respondent

¶8

Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

MR. JUSTICE D. DASH

¶11

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

Order No.

ORDER

02.09.2023

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual / physical) mode.

¶17

2 . The Stamp Reporter has pointed out that there is a delay of 4610 days (12 years 7 months 20 days) in preferring the Appeal.

¶18

3 . Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is in custody for more than twelve years. He further submits that on conclusion of the Trial, the Appellant was held guilty of the offences under Section 302 of the I.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deogarh vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.02.2010, passed in Sessions Trial No.06 of 2008 and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for six months more. It is also submitted that the Appellant being in custody, remained under a bona fide impression that appeal has been preferred. But, on verification,

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

he could know that no appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment. He submits that the delay in filing the Appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional. Therefore, he urged for condoning the delay in filing the Appeal.

¶22

4 . Learned counsel for the State opposed the move citing the period of delay for more than a decade and contending the explanation to be too casual and unacceptable for a moment.

¶23

5 . The submissions in support of condonation of delay in filing the Appeal, are found to be per se not acceptable and we are not in a position to say that the explanations as are offered for such long delay of twelve (12) years, seven (07) months and twenty (20) days in filing the Appeal are satisfactory. There surfaces no sufficient cause to condone the delay. In fact, the Appellant is found to have sat over the matter for a long time by not filing the Appeal and during the period, he has also not availed of the opportunities of seeking any such assistance as readily available in the jail. Hence, we are not inclined to condone the long delay in filing the Appeal.

¶24

6 . The JCRLA is dismissed being barred by limitation.

¶25

(D. Dash) Judge

¶26

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Gitanjali Date: 04-Sep-2023 15:51:33

¶29

Page 2 of 2

Chitrasen Bhoi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chitrasen Bhoi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raisingh Munda Vs State of Orissa

Dhiren Dalai Vs State of Orissa

Dhaneswar Kanhar Vs State of Orissa

Kunu Pujhari Vs State of Odisha

Banthu @ Biranchi Swain Vs State of Odisha

Gangadhar Pradhan Vs State of Orissa