Shashmita Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State opposite party No.1 besides Ms. Biswal, learned counsel for opposite party No.2.

¶14

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 3^rd September, 2025 as at Annexure-4, whereby, an application under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act moved by her was rejected.

¶15

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the application as per Annexure-2, the same was disposed of on technical ground since it has not been moved by the prosecution. The further submission is that a pen drive being a material object and necessary for proving the case has not been seized during and in course of investigation, though, it was assured by the I.O., hence, such an application as per Annexure-1 series was pressed into service but it has been

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

rejected vide Annexure-4 and therefore, the impugned decision of the learned court below is liable to be interfered with followed by consequential directions issued.

¶18

Recorded the objection of Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State.

¶19

Ms. Biswal, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 submits that the petitioner did not cooperate in the investigation as was made to reveal from the case diary produced before the learned court below and therefore, such a plea at this belated stage cannot be entertained. The further submission is that the learned court below did not err in not entertaining the application i.e. Annexure-1 series for the reason that it was not sponsored by the prosecution.

¶20

Perused the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4 and the Court finds that the learned court below rejected the application of the petitioner referring to Section 301 Cr.P.C. and on the ground that it has not been moved by the prosecution. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on an order dated 9^th September, 2025 of Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12210 of 2025 to contend that such an application by the informant is maintainable. It is further submitted that the decision (supra) is according to the judgment of the Apex Court in Anvar P.V. Vrs. P.K.Basheer AIR 2015 SC 180. In fact, according to the Court, recording the objection of Mr. Sahoo, learned ASC for the State and Ms. Biswal, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, the application is acceptable at the behest of the informant but it has to be moved

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

by the prosecution. The Court is of the further view that the learned court below should have directed the prosecution to move the application instead of rejecting the same on technical ground referring to Section 301 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the Court is of the conclusion that an objection to the application as per Annexure-2 was received from opposite party No.2 but there has been no discussion thereon nor with regard to the plea of the petitioner, which is, hence, needs a fresh consideration by the learned court below by an order on merit.

¶23

7. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶24

In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of with a direction to consider Annexure-1 series received from the informant with the objection of opposite party No.2 at Annexure-2 by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack and to dispose it of in accordance with law at the earliest preferably within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order at Annexure-4 in S.T. Case No. 35 of 2022 is set aside.

¶25

9. A certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶26

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶27

Kabita

¶28

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 17-Oct-2025 19:40:28

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Shashmita Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashmita Nayak v. State of Odisha

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

Jayaram Nayak Vs State Election Commission, Bbsr

Latangini Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Gouribala Das Vs Ramachandra Das

Subash Chandra Bhoi Vs Bipin Bihari Mallick

Rashmi@Rashmi Ranjan Bhol Vs State of Odisha

Arun Kumar Yadav Vs State of Odisha