Kalia@Laxmidhar Naya Vs State

1 . Heard Mr. Bijaya Kumar Ragada, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State.

¶17

In the present Criminal Appeal, the appellant has assailed the order dated 05.04.2007 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Khurda in S.T. Case No.40/106 of 2006, whereby his application under Section 452 of the Cr. P.C. for release of the Hero Honda Glamour Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.OR-02-AG2817 has been rejected.

¶18

It appears that eight accused persons were chargesheeted in relation to Begunia P.S. Case No.51 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 399/402 of the IPC read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. Four accused persons faced the trial whereas the remaining four being absconded, their trial got splited up. Four accused persons

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

including the present appellant have been acquitted by the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 05.04.2007 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda. In the acquittal order in so far as release of the vehicle is concerned, the learned trial Court observed that no order could be passed regarding disposal of the seized property in view of pendency of the split up trial. Against the said observation, the appellant approached this Court by filing Criminal Revision No.423 of 2007, which was subsequently withdrawn by the appellant. After withdrawing the Criminal Revision, the appellant had moved an application under Section 452 of the Cr. P.C. before the learned trial Court, which has been rejected vide impugned order.

¶21

Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the present Criminal Appeal.

¶22

Mr. Ragada, learned counsel on the request of the Court appeared as Amicus Curiae and rendered assistance to this Court in the capacity of Amicus Curiae.

¶23

At the outset, Mr. Ragada, learned Amicus Curiae submits that the fate of the split up trial is not known to him. He also submits that the incident is of the year 2006 and the seizure has also been taken place in the year 2006. Much time has already been elapsed. Hence, it would be appropriate for the appellant to move a fresh application before the learned trial Court under Section 452 of the Cr. P.C., which could be decided taking into consideration the changing circumstances including taking into consideration the fate of split up trial.

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

Mr. A.K. Apat, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State also agrees to the submission made by Mr. Ragada, learned Amicus Curiae.

¶26

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, I am inclined to partly allow the Criminal Appeal by setting aside the order dated 05.04.2007 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Khurda in S.T. Case No.40/106 of 2006 and granting liberty to the appellant to move a fresh application under Section 452 of the Cr. P.C. If such application is made, the same shall be considered on its merit, taking into consideration the changing circumstances.

¶27

A copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial Court forthwith. The learned trial Court shall issue notice to the appellant so as to appraising regarding the order passed by this Court and enable him to make a motion as indicated above.

¶28

With the aforementioned observation, the Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed

¶29

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Subhasis Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 07-Aug-2025 18:19:01

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Kalia@Laxmidhar Naya v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalia@Laxmidhar Naya v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Vs Republic of India

Natha Nayak Vs State

Biswanath Kuldeep Vs State

Naba Vs State

Kalu Vs State

Debendra Sasmal Vs State