Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.62 of 2005 State of Orissa (GA) ..... Petitioner Mr. Sangram Das, Standing Counsel for Vigilance Department -versus- Surendra Pal Karir ..... Opposite Party Represented By Adv. - M/s. P. K. Pattnaik CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 04.09.2025 Order No. 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department-Petitioner. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present application under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C., the Petitioner seeks leave of this Court to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal. On perusal of the record, it appears that the Opposite Party faced trial in T.R. Case No.1 of 1999 for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 13(2) read with Section 1(1)(d) and Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988. Page 2 of 3. 4. The learned trial Court, upon conclusion of the trial, vide judgment dated 17.08.2004, was pleased to acquit the Opposite Party of all charges. Being aggrieved by such judgment of acquittal, the vigilance department has approached this Court by filing the present petition seeking leave to prefer an appeal against such judgment. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department at the outset contended that there are good grounds to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.08.2004. He further specifically referred to ground No-B of the leave petition and submitted before this Court that the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur while acquitting the Opposite Party-accused has lost sight of the latest view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding recovery of the money irrespective of the purpose as per the defence plea and that a statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act is available to the prosecution. He further submitted that in view of the deposition of P.W. Nos.1, 2 & 5 a presumption can very well be drawn under Section 20 of the Act coupled with the examination in chief of P.W. Nos.3 & 4. On such ground, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department contended that they be accorded with leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal. 6. On a careful analysis of the impugned judgment dated 17.08.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur in T.R. Case No.1 of 1999, this court found that there are no valid grounds to prefer an appeal against the same. Moreover, this Court is also of the considered view that at the time of Page 3 of 3. presentation of the present leave application the Opposite Party- accused was aged about 57 years and in the meantime twenty years have elapsed. In view of the aforesaid delay, granting leave to prefer an appeal at this belated stage would cause injustice to the Opposite Party. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is not inclined to grant leave to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal. 7. Accordingly, the leave application stands dismissed. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout