Disposed¶20

Sobha Nayak v. State

Orissa HC24 Nov 2025CRLLP/57/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLLP 57/2011; High Court of Orissa; Sobha Nayak v. State of Orissa; victim appeal against acquittal; Section 372 Cr.P.C. proviso; Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C.; condonation of delay; Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025) SCC Online SC 1320; SDJM Khurda acquittal 02.05.2011; I.C.C No.68 of 2005; Sections 448, 427, 379, 506, 34 IPC; leave application disposed 24.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appeal directly before the appellate court together with an application for condonation of delay; the trial court directed to consider the condonation application liberally in view of the pendency of the leave application since 20.06.2011. ¶20

Sobha Nayak Vs State — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the complainant, being a victim as defined in Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., may prefer an appeal directly to the appellate court against the acquittal of the accused, in view of the amendment to and proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

In view of the amendment to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and the proviso to that section, a right has been conferred upon the victim to prefer an appeal directly to the court to which an appeal would lie in the case of conviction of the accused persons.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Relying on the position in Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., (2025) SCC Online SC 1320, the present leave application is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal directly before the appellate court along with an application for condonation of delay.

¶19

Key takeaways

The learned trial court shall consider the application for condonation of delay liberally, taking into consideration that the leave application was pending before this Court from 20.06.2011 till the date of this order.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Victim's right of direct appeal against acquittal — Criminal Leave Petition (CRLLP No.57 of 2011) filed on 20.06.2011 by the complainant against judgment of acquittal dated 02.05.2011 of the learned SDJM, Khurda in I.C.C No.68 of 2005 acquitting the accused-private Opposite Parties under Sections 448, 427, 379, 506 and 34 IPC — complainant held to be a "victim" under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C.; in view of the amendment to and proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. conferring on the victim a right to appeal directly to the court where an appeal would lie on conviction, and relying on Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., (2025) SCC Online SC 1320, liberty granted to the petitioner to file the appeal directly before the appellate court with an application for condonation of delay; trial court directed to consider the condonation liberally as the leave application stood pending from 20.06.2011 — CRLLP disposed of (A.K. Mohapatra, J.; order dated 24.11.2025).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.57 of 2011

¶2

Sobha Nayak ..... Petitioner

¶3

Represented By Adv. - Pravash Ch. Jena

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Orissa & Ors.

¶6

..... Opp. Parties

¶7

Represented By Adv. – C.M. Singh, A.S.C.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

24.11.2025

Order No.

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

¶14

On perusal of the record it appears that the present leave application was presented on 20.06.2011 at the instance of the complainant in 1.C.C No.68 of 2005. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 02.05.2011 passed by the learned SDJM, Khurda thereby acquitting the accused-private Opposite Parties of the charges under Section 448, 427, 379, 506 and 34 of IPC.

¶15

On perusal of the impugned judgment it appears that complainant is a victim in this case as has been defined in Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, in view of the amendment to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C and further in terms of the proviso to the said section, a right has been conferred upon the victim to prefer an appeal directly to the court to which an appeal would have lied in

¶16

Page 1 of 2.

¶17

Anil

¶18

the case of conviction of the accused persons.

¶19

In the aforesaid context, this court referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 1320 . In view of the aforesaid position, the present application is being disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate court directly along with an application for condonation of delay. In such eventuality, the learned trial court shall consider the application for condonation of the delay liberally by taking into consideration the fact that the leave application was pending before this Court for consideration from 20.06.2011 till today

¶20

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the CRLLP stands disposed of.

¶21

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

¶22

Signature Not Verified Page 2 of 2.

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 25-Nov-2025 18:44:43

Sobha Nayak v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sobha Nayak v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

State Vs Subhendu S.Das

State Vs Harsamani Mishra