Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.88 of 2008 Ladu Kishore Mohapatra ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - M/s. Samir Ku. Mishra -versus- Indrajit Nath ..... Opposite Party Represented By Adv. - M/s. Bharat Bhusan Rath CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 08.12.2025 Order No. 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the sole Opposite Party. Perused the application as well as the show-cause affidavit filed on behalf of the Opposite Party. 3. The present application has been filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., at the instance of the complainant in 1.C.C. Case No.833 of 2007 seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the Appellant dated 21.07.2008 passed in the above noted 1.C.C. Case by the learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar. The above noted complaint case was registered for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 447, 323, 294 & 506 of IPC. In the aforesaid complaint case the sole Opposite Party faced trial and finally by judgment Page 2 of 3. dated 21.07.2008, the sole Opposite Party has been acquitted of all the charges. The present application has been filed seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the aforesaid judgment dated 21.07.2008. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner has been acquitted by the learned trial Court by accepting the plea of alibi taken by the accused in the trial Court. He further submitted that the timing that has been indicated in the register that was produced before the Court in support of the plea of alibi does not tally with the plea taken by the Petitioner. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the learned trial Court has committed a gross illegality by acquitting the Petitioner by accepting his plea of alibi. 5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party on the other hand referred to his show-cause affidavit and stated before this Court that the learned trial Court in its judgment dated 21.07.2008, particularly in Para-9, has discussed in detail the evidence with regard to the plea of alibi taken by the accused-Opposite Party before the learned trial Court. He further submitted that at the relevant point of time the Opposite Party had gone to Jawahar Nabodaya Vidyalaya situated at Mundali to meet his son, who was studying in that school in Class- VI. A teacher of the said school, who was in-charge of the hostel, has also been examined as D.W.1 and he has produced the visiting register of the hostel containing the signature of the Opposite Party. It further reveals that the aforesaid register as well as the signature of the Opposite Party was admitted in evidence without any objection from the side of the complainant-Petitioner. The learned trial Court, after a thorough analysis of the evidence before him, has come to a conclusion that the Petitioner is not guilty of the offences. Page 3 of 3. 6. In view of the careful analysis done by the learned trial Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present matter by granting leave to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal. Hence, the leave application stands dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the CRLLP application stands dismissed. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout