Allowed¶18

Jayanta Kumar Panda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC1 Jul 2026CRLMC/1797/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court CRLMC; Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.; adduction of further evidence; rejection of Section 311 petition dated 15.01.2026; return of Evidence Affidavit to petitioner's counsel; JMFC (LR & LTV) Dhenkanal; 1.C.C Case No.47 of 2021; setting aside trial court order dated 09.02.2026; limited liberty; production of witnesses by petitioner; ends of justice; disposal of CRLMC.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 09.02.2026 of the learned JMFC (LR & LTV), Dhenkanal in 1.C.C Case No.47 of 2021 set aside; trial court directed to permit the petitioner to produce witnesses on his behalf to depose and adduce evidence; CRLMC disposed of accordingly. ¶18

Jayanta Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned JMFC (LR & LTV), Dhenkanal in 1.C.C Case No.47 of 2021, rejecting the Petitioner's petition dated 15.01.2026 filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to adduce further evidence, should be set aside so as to permit the Petitioner to adduce evidence through his witnesses.

¶11

Court's answer

After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court held that the ends of justice would be served by granting limited liberty to the Petitioner.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned JMFC (LR & LTV), Dhenkanal in 1.C.C Case No.47 of 2021 is set aside.

¶17

Key takeaways

The learned JMFC (LR & LTV), Dhenkanal is directed to permit the petitioner to produce witnesses on his behalf to depose before the Court below for adducing evidence.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRLMC No.1797 of 2026 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi; decided 01.07.2026): The petitioner, a party in 1.C.C Case No.47 of 2021 before the JMFC (LR & LTV), Dhenkanal, sought setting aside of the trial court's order dated 09.02.2026 rejecting his petition dated 15.01.2026 filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to adduce further evidence through a witness who was present before the trial court on 15.01.2026, whose Evidence Affidavit (filed with advance copy to the Complainant's counsel) the trial court had returned to the petitioner's counsel. Holding that the ends of justice would be served by granting limited liberty, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the learned JMFC (LR & LTV), Dhenkanal to permit the petitioner to produce witnesses on his behalf to depose before the Court below for adducing evidence; the CRLMC was thereupon disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1797 of 2026

¶2

Jayanta Kumar Panda ...… Petitioner(s) Mr. Pradipta Verma, Adv.

¶3

-Versus-

¶4

……. State of Odisha & Anr. Opposite Party (s) Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI ORDER

Order No.

01.07.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶11

2. The Petitioner has filed this CRLMC with a prayer to set aside the order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned JMFC(LR & LTV), Dhenkanal in 1.C.C Case No.47 of 2021.

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the learned JMFC(LR & LTV), Dhenkanal rejected the petition dated 15.01.2026 filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner to adduce further evidence on his behalf, through the witness, who was present before the said Court on 15.01.2026. He had filed his Evidence Affidavit serving an advance copy on the learned Counsel for the Complainant. But, the learned trial Court returned the said Evidence Affidavit to the Counsel for the Petitioner, which was crucial and essential for the defense of the case. The learned

¶13

Trial Court without appreciating such facts of presence of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed witness in Court as well as the settled principle of law laid down

¶14

Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 01-Jul-2026 16:48:05

¶15

by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Hon'ble Court, rejected the said petition on a later date, i.e. on 09.02.2026. He had filed his Evidence Affidavit. Hence, there was no chance of any further prolonging of the matter and the evidence itself showed how it was essential for the just decision of the case. Hence, the Petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.

¶16

4. Learned counsel for the State strongly opposes the prayer. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and

¶17

upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be served by granting limited liberty to the Petitioner. Accordingly, the order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned JMFC (LR & LTV), Dhenkanal in 1.C.C Case No.47 of 2021 is set aside. The learned JMFC (LR & LTV), Dhenkanal is directed to permit the petitioner to produce witnesses on his behalf to depose before the Court below for adducing evidence.

¶18

6. The CRLMC stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶19

( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶20

Signature Not Verified Gitanjali

¶21

Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 01-Jul-2026 16:48:05

Jayanta Kumar Panda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayanta Kumar Panda 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Kamala Tirkey@Swain@Kamala Tirky Vs State of Odisha

Taranisen Patra Vs Chanchal Rana, I.A.S

Ankur Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Odisha

Krushna Chandra Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Siva Prasad Rath Vs Superintendent of Police,Ganjam

Dasarathi Dash Vs State of Odisha