Naliniprabha Dandasena Vs State of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMA No. 27 of 2025

….. Naliniprabha Dandasena Appellant Mr. Shyam Manohar, Advocate Assisted by Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate Vs. ….. State of Odisha Respondent Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, ASC

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

¶6

ORDER 07.07.2025

¶7

Order No.

¶8

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶9

¶10

This CRLMA has been filed with a prayer to recall order dated 18^th January, 2021 passed in CRLA No. 286 of 2016 and to restore the CRLA to file.

¶11

Mr. Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that CRLA No. 286 of 2016 was filed by the father of the petitioner/appellant, namely, Netrananda Dandasena, who was a government servant.

¶12

The CRLA was filed assailing the judgment and conviction of the sentence dated 26^th April, 2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rayagada in Criminal Trial No.48 of 2014 convicting the appellant under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

Code (in short “the IPC”) for having conspired to murder the deceased punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant, namely, Netrananda Dandasena died leaving behind his legal heirs.

¶15

Mr. Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to order dated 18^th January, 2021 passed in CRLA No. 286 of 2016 which reads as under.

¶16

“This matter is taken up through video conferencing mode because of COVID-19 pandemic.

¶17

Heard.

¶18

The sole appellant-Netrananda Dandasena is stated to have expired in the meantime. This court gave a chance to the legal heir of the appellant to come forward to be substituted and notice was issued to his daughter.

¶19

None appears inspite of sufficiency of notice. Again time was granted on 16.11.2020 awaiting for appearance of the daughter of the appellant. On 14.12.2020 also another chance was given to the daughter of the deceased appellant to appear. But none has appeared till date.

¶20

It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that the case is one of substantive sentence only and no fine has been imposed.

¶21

Regard being had to such facts, the appeal against the appellant – Netrananda Dandasena abates on his death and the appeal is accordingly dismissed as abated.”

¶22

He however submits that no notice whatsoever was served on the petitioner/appellant, who is the unmarried daughter of said Netrananda Dandasena. As Netrananda Dandasena was convicted under Section 120-B IPC and directed to undergo life

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

imprisonment, his pensionary benefits were not released. Had the petitioner/appellant being given an opportunity to contest the appeal, the result of the appeal would have been otherwise. It is his submission that due to intervention of pandemic of COVID-19 as well as demise of the counsel for the appellant, the CRLMA could not be filed in time. However, the petitioner/appellant had earlier filed CRLMA No. 8 of 2024 for the self-same relief as prayed in this present CRLMA. The said CRLMA was disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 5^th February, 2025 with a liberty to the petitioner/appellant to file a better application. Accordingly, the present CRLMA has been filed.

¶25

Mr. Manohar, learned counsel in his elaborate submission drew attention of this Court to the grounds taken in CRLMA. It is his submission that the appellant being a government servant and due to the judgment of conviction and sentence his pensionary benefits have not been released. The petitioner/appellant being the unmarried daughter is also deprived of the family pension. He, therefore, prays for recalling order dated 18^th January, 2021 by which CRLA No.286 of 2016 was dismissed for non-prosecution and to restore the CRLA for hearing on merit.

¶26

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel does not have any serious objection for restoration of the CRLA No.286 of 2016.

¶27

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that although stamp reporting has been done but no defect has been pointed out. As such, this Court proceeds to adjudicate the CRLMA on merit.

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

Upon hearing Mr. Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the order-sheet in CRLA No. 286 of 2016, this Court finds that during pendency of the appeal, the appellant, namely, Netrananda Dandsena in CRLA No. 286 of 2016 expired leaving behind his legal heirs. But none of the legal heirs came forward to prosecute the appeal for which it was dismissed for non-prosecution on 18^th January, 2021. This Court has passed a reasoned order on 18^th January, 2021 to dismiss the CRLA for non-prosecution.

¶30

It is however submitted by Mr. Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice whatsoever was served on the present petitioner/appellant to prosecute the CRLA. On the otherhand, due to the judgment of conviction and sentence, a stigma remains against her father and she is deprived of family pension.

¶31

After dismissal of CRLA No.286 of 2016, IA No.951 of 2021 had been filed by Abha Dandasena, wife of the appellant, for permission to prosecute the appeal by substituting her husband as the appellant. IA No.2158 of 2024 was filed by the present petitioner with a prayer to restore CRLA No.286 of 2016 and for withdrawal of IA No.951 of 2021. These I.As are pending.

¶32

Keeping in mind that the petitioner who is the unmarried daughter of the diseased appellant, is interested to pursue the appeal, this Court feels it proper to recall order dated 18^th January, 2021 and restore CRLA No.286 of 2016 and order accordingly.

¶33