Dismissed¶28

State of Orissa v. Sk.Sarifuddin Ahamed

Orissa HC5 Aug 2025CRLLP/12/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; CRLLP No.12 of 2003; decided 05.08.2025 by Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J.; State of Orissa (Vigilance) v. Sk. Sarifuddin Ahamed; leave under Section 378 Cr.P.C. to appeal against acquittal dated 22.01.2002 in T.R. No.14 of 1993 of Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar; alleged temporary misappropriation of municipal/public funds deposited only after suspension; delay of almost 23 years; grave injustice to accused; leave application dismissed; no precedent cases cited.

What did the court decide?

On scrutiny of the judgment dated 22.01.2002 in T.R. No.14 of 1993, all the evidence available on record was taken note of by the learned court below in arriving at its conclusion, and this Court did not find any lapses on the part of the learned trial court. ¶24

State of Orissa Vs Sk.Sarifuddin Ahamed — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether leave should be granted to the State (Vigilance) under Section 378 Cr.P.C. to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.01.2002 passed in T.R. No.14 of 1993 by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar.

¶17

Court's answer

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Although the counsel for the petitioner raised a valid point (regarding alleged temporary misappropriation and deposit of money only after suspension), the same is not adequate to grant leave to file an appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. after a lapse of almost 23 years.

¶24

Key takeaways

Considering the magnitude of the allegation, and that leave is sought to appeal against a judgment of the year 2002 for an offence that took place several decades ago, granting leave would cause grave injustice to the accused-Opposite Party.ratio¶27
The leave application filed by the State (Vigilance) under Section 378 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Leave Petition (CRLLP) — S. 378 Cr.P.C. — State (Vigilance) sought leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 22.01.2002 in T.R. No.14 of 1993 (learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar) concerning alleged temporary misappropriation of municipal funds allegedly deposited only after suspension of the accused. Held: (i) the learned trial court took note of all evidence on record and no lapses were found in its judgment; (ii) although the petitioner's contention was a 'valid point', it was not adequate to grant leave under Section 378 Cr.P.C. after a lapse of almost 23 years; (iii) granting leave to appeal against a 2002 acquittal for an offence of several decades earlier would cause grave injustice to the accused-Opposite Party. Leave application dismissed. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J.)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.12 of 2003

¶2

State Of Orissa

¶3

.....

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Represented By Adv. - Mr.d.k.mohapatra,s.c.vig

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Sk.sarifuddin Ahamed

¶8

..... Opposite Party

¶9

Represented By Adv. - M/s.k.p.bhaumik, M/s S.k.zafarulla,s.pattanaik,j.kamila

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

05.08.2025

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶16

Heard Mr. S.Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department, the petitioner in this case as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties. Perused the records as well as the judgment dated 22.01.2002 passed in T.R. No.14 of 1993 by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar.

¶17

By filing the present application under Section 378 Cr.P.C. the State (Vigilance) seeks leave of this Court to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.01.2002.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the evidence collected during investigation as well as on the basis of the deposition and other materials which were placed before the trial court, a case is well established against the Opposite Party-accused that the money that was temporarily miss-appropriated by them was

¶19

Page 1 of 4.

¶20

deposited only after they were placed under suspension. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the petitioner laid emphasis on Ground No.D of the leave petition and stated before this Court that the learned Special Judge has over looked the malafide intention of the accused person and that the accused person after missappropriating a part of the municipal fund have failed to submit any account to the municipality explaining about the manner in which the amount was spent by them on behalf of the municipality and they have also failed in depositing the balance amount. Eventually, the amount was deposited only after they were placed under suspension. As such, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that a case of temporary miss-appropriation of the public fund is well made out against the present Petitioner on the basis of the materials available on record and that such aspect has been over looked by the learned Special Judge while delivering the judgment of acquittal. As a result, the present leave petition has been filed before this Court. On the aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the petitioner sought for leave to file an appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 22.01.2002.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Partyaccused contended that the judgment of acquittal by the learned Special Judge is a well-reasoned judgment and that the learned trial court has taken note of all the aspects. It was also contended that in course of trial several questions were formulated and while answering such questions the learned trial court has discussed in detail the evidence available on record and finally in Para-18 of the judgment the learned trial court has come to a well-reasoned conclusion that the accused persons temporarily withheld the money

¶22

Page 2 of 4.

¶23

entrusted to them and that there is no evidence on record that they have converted this money for their personal use or gain and on being directed by their higher authorities the spent amount has been deposited. In such view of the matter, learned trial court has come to a conclusion that it does not amount to be dishonest intention on the part of the accused persons so as to construe a case of missappropriation against the accused persons. On such ground, learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that no leave is to be granted on the aforesaid basis. He further contended that the occurrence is of the year 1993 that the judgment against which leave is sought for is of the year 2002, therefore the grant of leave at this stage file an appeal against such a trivial matter would cause serious prejudice to the Opposite Party and would cause grave justice to the accused persons.

¶24

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts, further on a close scrutiny of the judgment dated 22.01.2002 passed in T.R. No.14 of 1993 by the learned Special Judge Vigilance, Bhubaneswar, this Court found that the judgment delivered by the learned Special Judge Vigilance, Bhubaneswar, it appears that all the evidences available on the record have been taken note of by the learned court below while arriving at the conclusion. On further scrutiny, this Court did not find any lapses on the part of a learned trial court. While making such observation, this Court is of the view that although the counsel for the petitioner has raised a valid point, however the same is not adequate to grant leave to file an appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. after a lapse of almost 23 years. This Court is also of the view that considering the magnitude of the

¶25

Page 3 of 4.

¶26

Rubi

¶27

allegation and further keeping in view the fact that the leave is being sought to prefer an appeal against the judgment of the year 2002 for commission of an offence that has taken place several decades ago would definitely cause grave injustice to the accused-Opposite Party.

¶28

In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation and dismissing the leave application. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶29

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge

¶30

Page 4 of 4.

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 08-Aug-2025 11:57:50

State of Orissa v. Sk.Sarifuddin Ahamed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Orissa v. Sk.Sarifuddin Ahamed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umakanta Panda Vs State of Odisha

Kedarnath Behera Vs State of Odisha

Sonu Mahato Vs State of Odisha

State of Orissa Vs Sk.Sarifuddin Ahamed

State of Orissa Vs Sk.Sarifuddin Ahamed

State of Orissa Vs Sk.Sarifuddin Ahamed