Dismissed¶21

State v. Subhendu S.Das

Orissa HC24 Nov 2025CRLLP/33/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; single Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra; order dated 24.11.2025 in CRLLP No.33 of 2011. State of Odisha (Vigilance) v. Subhendu S.das. Leave application under Section 378(5) Cr.P.C. for leave to appeal against acquittal dated 14.05.2010 in T.R. Case No.93 of 1999 (G.R. Case No.68 of 1999; Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.30 dated 29.05.1998) dismissed for uncondoned delay of 228 days and non-prosecution: condonation application rejected, leave application consequently dismissed. Keywords: condonation of delay, Section 378(5) Cr.P.C., leave to appeal against acquittal, vigilance prosecution, requisites for notice, dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The Court was not inclined to consider the application for condonation of delay and accordingly dismissed it. ¶21

State Vs Subhendu S.Das — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.33 of 2011

¶2

State

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

Represented By Adv. - None

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Subhendu S.das

¶7

..... Opposite Party

¶8

Represented By Adv. –

¶9

None

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

24.11.2025

Order No.

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

¶16

None appears for the respective parties.

¶17

On Perusal of the record it appears that the present leave application has been filed under Section 378(5) of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of the State of Odisha (Vigilance) seeking leave to prefer an appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 14.05.2010 in T.R. Case No.93 of 1999 which arises out of G.R. Case No.68 of 1999 corresponds to Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.30 dated 29.05.1998.

¶18

Record reveals that the present leave application was presented before this Court on 28.03.2011with a delay of 228 days. However without any accompaning application for condonation of delay. By order dated 29.07.2011, this Court directed for issuance of notice, however the requisites were not filed for several years

¶19

Page 1 of 2.

¶20

thereafter. Again on 08.05.2015 time was granted to file requisites for issuance of notice. Time was again granted on 30.06.2015. In the meantime, Mr. Sangram Das entered appearance for the Vigilance Department on 11.09.2015. The last order of the office dated 11.09.2025 reveals that till date the requisites have not been filed for issuance of notice to the sole Opposite Party by registered post with AD as directed by this Court more than a decade ago. The Stamp Report reveals that there is delay of 228 days in preferring this leave application.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid fact, this Court is not inclined to consider the application for condonation of delay. Hence, the same is dismissed. As a consequential therefore, the leave application is also dismissed.

¶22

( A.K. Mohapatra)

¶23

Judge

¶24

Sisir

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 27-Nov-2025 16:13:19

¶27

Page 2 of 2.

State v. Subhendu S.Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Subhendu S.Das

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 Vs Satya Narayan Mishra

State Vs Babula Behera

State Vs Selegram Pradhan

Hari Shankar Patta Vs Abhimanyu Patta

Sobha Nayak Vs State

State Vs Harsamani Mishra