Dismissed¶20

State v. Selegram Pradhan

Orissa HC21 Nov 2025CRLLP/23/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal leave petition (CRLLP) by State of Orissa (Vigilance) under Section 378(5) Cr.P.C. for leave to appeal against acquittal in vigilance corruption case (PC Act, Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d)); dismissed solely on limitation because filed after delay of 4 years 183 days without any application for condonation of delay; limitation held to continue running; no adjudication on merits of acquittal; Orissa High Court, Single Judge (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J.), order dated 21.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Since the leave application was filed on 08.03.2011 without an application for condonation of delay and no such application was filed till date, limitation continues to run. ¶19

State Vs Selegram Pradhan — Corruption | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.23 of 2011

¶2

State of Orissa (Vigilance)

¶3

.....

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Represented By Adv. - Mr. Sangram Das, Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Selegram Pradhan

¶8

..... Opposite Party Represented By Adv. -

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

21.11.2025

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/ Physical Mode).

¶15

The present application has been filed at the instance of the StatePetitioner represented through Vigilance Department under Section 378(5) of the Cr.P.C.

¶16

By filing the present leave application, the State-Petitioner seeks leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment dated 26.08.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur in C.T.R. Case No.35/2004, thereby challenging acquitting the sole Opposite Party of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶17

Perused the record. On perusal of the record, it appears that the present leave application was presented on 08.03.2011 and as per Stamp Report dated 27.06.2015, there exists a delay of 4 years 183 days, as the leave application was not accompanied an application for

¶18

Page 1 of 2.

¶19

condonation of delay. The record further reveals that no such application is filed till today with a prayer for condonation of delay. Therefore, limitation continuous to run. The order sheet reveals that on 23.04.2015, the matter was listed and the same was adjourned as no authorized counsel for the State-Petitioner was present before this Court.

¶20

Taking into consideration the fact that the leave application was filed on 08.03.2011 without accompanying for an application for condonation of delay and further taking into consideration the fact that till date, no application has been filed for condonation of delay, the present leave application is dismissed on the ground of limitation.

¶21

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶22

Debasis

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 25-Nov-2025 17:11:25

¶25

Page 2 of 2.

State v. Selegram Pradhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Selegram Pradhan

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

State of Orissa Vs Purussotam Bindhani

Rohitas Behera Vs State of Odisha

Ashutosh Sahu Vs State of Odisha

State Vs Satya Narayan Mishra

State Vs Babula Behera

State Vs Jayaprakash Mishra