STATE v. R.ADI ACHARIYALU
Court: High Court of Orissa
Bench: MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Orissa judgment dated 2025-12-11. STATE v. R.ADI ACHARIYALU. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No. 37 of 2012 State of Orissa ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Sangram Das, Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department -versus- R. Adi Achariyalu ..... Opp. Party Represented By Adv. - CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 11. 12. 2025 Order No. 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Shri 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) & (3) of the Cr. P. C with a prayer for grant of leave to prefer an appeal against judgment dated 10. 08. 2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Jeypore in G. R Case No. 24 of 1992(V) which corresponds to T. R No. 69 of 2007 for commission of an offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(e)/ 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Page 1 of 3. 4.
On perusal of the record, it appears that the abovenoted case arises out of a vigilance FIR wherein it has been alleged that the Opposite Party was found to be possessing assets which are disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs. 9,40,640/- (Rupees nine lakh forty thousand six hundred forty at the time while he was working as a public servant in the Agriculture department under Government of Odisha from 18. 02. 1961 to 04. 01. 1992. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, the Petitioner faced the trial. The learned trial court by virtue of a detailed judgment dated 10. 08. 2011 has failed to establish the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and, accordingly, held that the accused is not guilty of the offences as alleged against the present Petitioners. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of acquittal, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present leave application under Section 378 of the Cr. P.
C mainly on the grounds taken in the petition at Sl. Nos. 4, 6 & 7. 5. On a perusal and careful examination of the grounds No. 4, 6 & 7 and on a close scrutiny of the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the learned trial court has taken into consideration the entire evidence and by virtue of a detailed judgment has come to the conclusion. As such, this Court finds no infirmity with the judgment of the learned trial court. 6. On further verification of the record it appears that present appeal was presented with a delay of 128 days. Although notices were issued, however, there is no confirmation with regard to the service of the notice on the accused. It further appears that the case is pending since 2012. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment on merits Page 2 of 3. as well as on the ground of limitation. 7. Accordingly, the leave application stands dismissed. ( A. K.
Mohapatra) Judge Anil Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 3. Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-Dec-2025 18:58:16
Source: High Court of Orissa. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.