Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.9 of 2006 State of Orissa ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – S.C. Pradhan, A.S.C. -versus- Samaru Tandi & Ors. ..... Opp. Parties Represented By Adv. – A.K. Dash, Adv. for O.P. No.2 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 14.08.2025 Order No. 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. The present leave application has been filed at the instance of the prosecution seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment of acquittal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Cr.P.C. 3. Heard learned counsels appearing for both sides. Perused the judgment as well as other materials on record. 4. Learned counsel for the State at the outset contended that being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 30.04.2003, the prosecution has filed his application seeking leave to prefer an appeal. He further contended that initially the Opposite Parties-accused persons were charged under Section 3(A) of the R.P. (U.P.) Act, 1996. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06.09.1994 at about 5 P.M., upon getting confidential Page 2 of 3. information about cutting and taking away of some ‘stone metal’ from the railway land, the O.I.C. of the RPF along with Head Constables reached at the spot. On arriving at the spot it was noticed that one truck was coming from the South side to East side towards North on the railway road. Thereafter, the said loaded truck bearing Regd. No.ORS-5249 was surrounded by the raiding party and they found 8 metric tons of stone metal. On being asked, the driver of the vehicle did not produce any receipt or document/ authority in support of the stone metal that was being transported. Accordingly, the vehicle was seized and the case was registered, enquired into and the P.R. was filed. On the basis of such P.R., the trial was commenced. 5. On perusal of the impugned judgment, this Court observes that the learned trial court in its judgment has discussed the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. Further, it has been specifically observed by the learned trial court that only one witness from the side of the prosecution has been examined. Although there are several persons present at the time of raid, no other witnesses examined from the prosecution side. While passing the order of acquittal, the learned trial court has also taken note of fact that it is the quality of the evidence not quantity that matters and that the conviction can be based on the testimony of the sole witness whose evidence is trustworthy and unimpeachable. So far the only witness from the side of the prosecution is concerned, his evidence does not find any corroboration from any other evidence. Moreover, he happens to be an official witness. Thus, the trial court has held that it is difficult to hold that the accused persons were in possession of Page 3 of 3. the railway property as there is no corroborative piece of evidence. Thus, the learned trial court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed in bringing home the charges and, accordingly, the accused persons have been acquitted from all the charges under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. 6. On a careful analysis of the judgment as has been made hereinabove, this Court found that the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-J.M.F.C., Jharsuguda has not committed any illegality as the prosecution which has failed to adduce, trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence which prove the prosecution case beyond all reasonable date. Since the prosecution has failed to discharge his duties, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused persons. Thus on a close scrutiny of the judgment, this Court finds no ground to grant leave to the prosecution to file its appeal. Accordingly, the present leave application stands dismissed. Additionally, taking into consideration the fact that the judgment is of the year 2003, there is no meaning in granting leave after expiry of almost two decades which would ultimately cause prejudice to the accused persons who have been acquitted in the meantime. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the CRLLP stands dismissed. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Anil Designation: Junior Stenographer