Page 1 of 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.127 of 2004 State of Orissa ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – U.C. Jena, A.S.C. -versus- Nilakantha Paramanik & Ors. ..... Opp. Parties Represented By Adv. – CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 26.08.2025 CRLLP No.127 of 2004 & I.A. No.47 of 2011 Order No. 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. The above noted Misc. Case has been filed at the instance of the State-Petitioner to condone a delay of about 268 days in filing the present application/ 3. Heard learned counsel for the State-Petitioner. Perused the application. 4. The above noted leave application has been filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Cr.P.C. seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 19.11.2023 passed in S.T. No.55/66 of 2002 which arises out of G.R. Case No.160 of 2001 and the same corresponds to Soro P.S. Case No.59 dated 19.04.2001 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balasore thereby acquitting the accused- Page 2 of 2. Opposite Parties. 5. On a perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the accused-Opposite Parties faced trial for commission of an offence punishable under Section 341/307 read with 34 of the I.P.C. The learned trial court by virtue of a detailed judgment and after analysing the evidence has come to a conclusion that the accused persons have not been found guilty of the offence as alleged and, accordingly, they have been acquitted of all charges under Section 235 (1) of the Cr.P.C. 6. Challenging the aforesaid judgment of acquittal, the State- Petitioner has preferred this appeal under Section 378 (1) of the Cr.P.C. seeking leave to prefer a regular appeal. Although the judgment is dated 19.11.2003, however, the appeal was presented on 23.12.2004 after a delay of about 268 days. In the meantime, more than 2 decades have elapsed, however, the delay has not been condoned as of now. On perusal of the Misc. case, this Court is of the view that no sufficient explanation for the aforesaid delay has been furnished by the State-Petitioner. 7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid grounds, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, the Misc. Case stands dismissed. Consequentially, the leave petition has also hereby dismissed. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Anil Designation: Junior Stenographer