Page 1 of 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.171 of 2007 State Of Orissa ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - A.g.a. -versus- Shymalal Pradhan ..... Opposite Party Represented By Adv. - CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 17.10.2025 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/ Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the State-Petitioner. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The present application has been filed under Section 378(1) and 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer for grant of leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 21.11.2006 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Jharsuguda in 2(C) C.C. No.17 of 95 corresponding to T.R. No.335 of 2006 for alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. 4. On perusal of the record it appears that the leave application was initially presented with a delay of 98 days as has been reported by the Stamp reporter. An application has been filed as Misc. case No.119 of 2007 for condonation of delay. Although notice was issued to the accused-Opposite party, however the same could not be Page 2 of 2. made sufficient despite expiry of more than one and half decades. Thus, this Court proposes to take up the limitation application as well as the leave application together for admission. 5. Heard learned counsel for the State. Perused the application. On perusal of the judgment dated 21.11.2006 passed in 2.C.C. Case No.17 of 95 by the learned J.M.F.C., Jharsuguda, this Court found that the sole opposite party faced trial for commission of an offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. The learned trial court by virtue of detailed judgment and after analysing the evidence adduce from both sides, has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the accused-Opposite Party has been acquitted of all charges. 6. On perusal of the leave application and on a careful consideration of the grounds taken therein seeking leave, this Court found that the grounds taken therein are not satisfactory. Moreover, in the meantime more than two decades have elapsed and the delay has not been condoned as of now. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is not inclined to grant leave to the State-Petitioner for filing an appeal. 7. Accordingly, the CRLLP stands dismissed. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Rubi