IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.884 of 2025 Sil E. Prabhavati …. Petitioner Mr. R.K. Sahu, Advocate -Versus- P. Bijaya Kumar Patra and another …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Advocate & Ms. S. Patra, Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 01.12.2025 I.A. No.1266 of 2025 01. 1. Heard. 2. Instant IA is filed for condonation of delay since the revision has been presented beyond the stipulated period. 3. A delay of 88 days is report as per the SR. 4. The petitioner is in custody at present. The explanation of the petitioner is considered. The objection is received from opposite party No.1 and the submission of Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for appearing for him is noted down. But, accepting the explanation offered towards such delay, the Court is of the view that the same should be condoned in order to facilitate disposal of the appeal on merit subject. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge CRLREV No.884 of 2025 1. Heard Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. Today, Ms. Sulochana Patra, learned counsel and his associates with Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel have entered appearance for opposite party No.1 by filling Vakalatnama, which is accepted and taken on record. 3. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 12th May, 2025 as at Annexure-1 passed in Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Berhampur. 4. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in custody since 18th September, 2025 and while claiming so, he refers to a copy of the order of the learned J.M.F.C., Berhampur as at Annexure-3. The further submission is that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish the statutory deposit i.e. 20% of the compensation amount and hence, the appeal should be restored with a direction to the learned Sessions Judge, Berhampur to consider disposal of the same on merit. 5. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 submits that the impugned order at Annexure-1 is in accordance with law since the petitioner failed to furnish the deposit as required under Section 148 of the NI Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) 6. Perused the impugned order i.e. Annexure-1 and it reveals that the petitioner failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated period despite an order dated 20th December, 2024 and even within the extended period and as a result, the appeal was dismissed for such non-compliance under Section 148 of the NI Act. However, at present, the petitioner is ready to make a deposit and in such view of the matter and as he is in custody since the month of September, 2025, the Court is inclined to direct restoration of the appeal subject to 20% statutory deposit of the compensation amount received from him. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. 8. In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of allowing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount before the learned Sessions Judge, Berhampur and in the event, such deposit is made, the proceeding in Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2024 shall be restored to file forthwith and thereafter, he shall be released on bail subject suitable conditions imposed. It is further directed that the learned court below shall do well to ensure that the appeal is disposed of within a reasonable time. 9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Kabita