Dismissed¶¶25

Laxminarayan Das v. Republic of India

Orissa HC19 Jan 2026CRREV/65/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRREV No. 64 of 2002; CRREV No. 65 of 2002; Surya Narayan Das; Laxminarayan Das; Republic of India; CBI; dismissal of revision on death of petitioner; liberty to seek recall; S.P.E. Case No. 28 of 1991; Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special C.J.M. (C.B.I.) Bhubaneswar; Criminal Appeal No.1/57 of 2000; Criminal Appeal No.29/55 of 2000; Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.3 Bhubaneswar; conviction confirmed 19.12.2001; Miss Justice Savitri Ratho; Orissa High Court Cuttack; order dated 19.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Both the criminal revisions (CRREV No. 64 of 2002 and CRREV No. 65 of 2002) are dismissed on account of the death of the Petitioners. ¶¶25

Laxminarayan Das Vs Republic of India — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRREV No. 64 of 2002

¶2

Surya Narayan Das …. Petitioner Ms. A.K. Dei, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.P. Das, Advocate -versus- Republic of India …. Opp. Party

¶3

Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Special Retainer Counsel for CBI

¶4

CRREV No. 65 of 2002

¶5

Laxminarayan Das …. Petitioner

¶6

Ms. A.K. Dei, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.P. Das, Advocate

¶7

-versus-

¶8

Republic of India

¶9

…. Opp. Party

¶10

Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Special Retainer Counsel for CBI

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER

¶13

Order No.

¶14

19.01.2026

¶15

(Through hybrid Mode)

¶16

1. These revisions have been filed challenging the common judgment and order dated 19.12.2001 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1/57 of 2000 and Criminal Appeal No.29/55 of 2000 by the

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Bhubaneswar confirming the conviction of the petitioners in both the revisions passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate -cum- Special C.J.M. (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar in S.P.E. Case No. 28 of 1991.

¶19

Pursuant to order dated 25.09.2025, as the learned counsel for the Petitioners had submitted that both the Petitioners were dead, the learned counsel for the CBI had been directed to obtain instructions regarding the whereabouts and wellbeing of the Petitioners by the next date. The matter was not listed on 03.11.2025. When the matter was listed on 13.01.2026, Mr. Manish Dhir, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned Special Retainer Counsel for the CBI submitted that they have received instructions that the whereabouts of the Petitioners could not be ascertained, but the instruction was not filed, the matter was adjourned to today.

¶20

Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned Special Public Prosecutor -cum- Retainer Counsel for the CBI files the appearance memo on behalf of the Respondent.

¶21

The memo dated 16.01.2025 has been filed on 16.01.2026 enclosing instructions dated 03.11.2025 in connection with the present CRREV No. 64 of 2002 and CRREV No. 65 of 2002 as well as CRREV No. 524 of 2004 (Petitioner – Sri Ramnath Patra) and CRREV No. 370 of 2002, CRREV No. 371 of 2002, CRREV No. 372 of 2002 (Petitioner - Benudhar Patra). The memo along with instructions and appearance memo of Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned Special Public Prosecutor -cum- Retainer

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

Counsel for the CBI are taken on record. The same shall be scanned and incorporated in the digital record.

¶24

A memo signed by Mr. D.P. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioners has been filed that although instructions have been received from the relatives of the Petitioners that they have expired in the meanwhile but the information regarding exact date of their death has not been supplied. The memo is taken on record.

¶25

In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the Respondent has not been able obtain instruction regarding whereabouts of the Petitioners after the learned counsel for the Petitioners reported that the Petitioners are dead, both the CRREVs are dismissed on account death of the Petitioners. But liberty is granted to the parties to file an application for recall of this order in case it is found that the Petitioners are still alive.

¶26

Copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial Court forthwith.

¶27

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶28

Sukanta/RKS

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 21-Jan-2026 20:47:51

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Laxminarayan Das v. Republic of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxminarayan Das v. Republic of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajaya Kumar Agarwal Vs State

B. Chandini Reddy Vs State of Odisha

Liyakat Ali Sha Vs State of Odisha

Jhansi Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Umakanta@Ramakanta Rout Vs State of Odisha

Surya Narayan Das Vs Republic of India