Dismissed¶24

State v. Manoj Ku.Singh

Orissa HC22 Sept 2025CRLLP/96/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; CRLLP No.96 of 2006; decided 22.09.2025 by Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra; State of Orissa (Ms. B.K. Sahu, AGA) vs Manoj Kumar Singh (none appeared); refusal of condonation of 64-day delay (M.C. No.54 of 2006) leading to dismissal of State's application under Section 378(1) & (3) Cr.P.C. for leave to appeal against acquittal in T.R. Case No.4 of 2002 (N.D.P.S. Act, Sections 20(b), 10.150 kgs ganja, Brajrajnagar P.S., Special Court Jharsuguda); keywords: leave to appeal acquittal, condonation of delay, NDPS, laches by State, unserved notice.

What did the court decide?

Given that two decades have elapsed with no steps taken for early listing, the notice on limitation was not duly served, and none appeared for the accused-Opposite Party, the Court is not inclined to condone the 64-day delay. ¶23

State Vs Manoj Ku.Singh — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLLP No.96 of 2006

¶3

State of Orissa

¶4

..... Petitioner

¶5

Ms. B.K. Sahu, AGA

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Manoj Kumar Singh

¶8

..... Opposite Party

¶9

None

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR

MOHAPATRA

ORDER

22.09.2025

Order No.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶18

Heard learned Additional Government Advocate for the StatePetitioner. None appears for the accused-Opposite Party. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶19

The present application has been filed at the instance of the State-Petitioner by invoking the provision of Section 378(1) & (3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court, Jharsuguda in T.R. Case No.4 of 2002.

¶20

The above noted T.R. Case arises out of Brajrajnagar P.S. which was registered for commission of an offence punishable under Sections 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. As per the prosecution allegation

¶21

Page 1 of 2.

¶22

the Opposite Party was accused of possessing contraband ganja of 10.150 kgs.

¶23

On perusal of the records, it appears that the present petition was filed on 25.07.2006 with a delay of 64 days along with an application bearing M.C. No.54 of 2006 for condonation of delay in presentation of the application. Although notice was issued to the accused-Opposite Party on 14.01.2011, however, till date there is no confirmation of service of the notice and the matter has never been listed thereafter. Further, it appears that in the meantime two decades’ time has elapsed and no steps have been taken for early listing of the matter. Moreover, this Court observes that the notice on limitation has also not been served duly on the Opposite Party. Accordingly, none has appeared on behalf of the accused-Opposite Party. In view of the aforesaid factual background, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay.

¶24

Accordingly, the Misc. Case No.54 of 2006 stands dismissed. Consequentially, the CRLLP application also stands dismissed.

¶25

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge

¶26

S.K. Rout

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Page 2 of 2. Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 24-Sep-2025 12:27:49

State v. Manoj Ku.Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Manoj Ku.Singh

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

Mukunda Hantal Vs State of Odisha

Dusmanta Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Gautam Kumar V.K. Burra Vs Shaik Gousia Begum

State of Orissa Vs Sirapani Modi

State of Orissa Vs Bharini Pattnaik

Ramani Ranjan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha