AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 308 wordsSavitri Ratho, J
CRLREV NO. 701 OF 2023 & I.A. NO. 236 OF 2024
The Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 16.09.2022 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in ST Case No. 155 of 2019 rejecting the application of the petitioner filed for discharging him from the offences under Sections 493/ 376/ 417/ 506 of IPC and framing charge against him for the said offences.
Ms. Rublin Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conducting counsel in the learned court below had shifted his place of practice and therefore could not communicate the minutes of the proceedings and the impugned order to the petitioner and as the petitioner himself is a layman and is unaware of the proceeding and niceties of law for which the petition could not be filed in time.
Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner was present on the date, the impugned order was passed. I am therefore not satisfied to the grounds taken in the I.A. for condoning the delay in filing the Criminal Revision which is more than one year. As the petitioner has been charged for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376 and other Sections of the IPC, I condone the delay subject to payment of cost of Rs.4,000/- (rupees Four Thousands only) which shall be paid to the High Court Advocates’ Welfare Fund within a period of two weeks from today.
If the receipt is filed by 16.04.2024, the same shall be incorporated in the digital record.
The I.A. is disposed of.
List the CRLREV on 22.04.2024 for fresh admission.
A report be called for from the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack regarding present status of the trial as the impugned order has been passed almost two years ago.
.……………………………….