The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 133 of 2006 An application under Section 401 read with 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. -------------- Balgopal Satpathy ..… Petitioner -versus- State of Orissa ..… Opp. Party --------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Mr. D.P. Nanda, Senior Advocate For Petitioner with Mr. L. Rayatsingh, Advocate : Mr. M.R. Patra, ASC For Opp. Party ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: HONOURABLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO JUDGMENT 22.11.2024 I.A. No. 542 of 2024 Savitri Ratho, J This interim application has been filed “under Chapter – VI, Rule – 27( A) of the Orissa High court Rules for recalling / modifying the judgment”. 2. The prayer in the I.A is reproduced below : “It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to allow this petition and recall/modify the judgment dated 15.05.2024 by hearing the matter through the present new counsel, for the interest of justice. CRLREV No. 133 of 2006 Page 1 of 19 And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 3. Paragraphs 4, 5 , 6 , 7 and 8 of the application are reproduced below : “4. That, thereafter the matter was listed this year before this Hon’ble Court for hearing of the revision. It is worthwhile to mention here that the previous conducting counsel has not taken any effective steps for hearing of the matter. Accordingly on 25.04.2024 the associates of the previous counsel has prayed for time on the ground that the LCR may be supplied to him. Then again the matter was taken on 14.05.2024 wherein the previous conducting counsel did not appear before this Hon’ble Court and the judgment was reserved. Then again on 15.05.2024 the judgement has been pronouced without hearing the petitioner wherein the sentence has been modified from two years to one year RI and on default the RI for a period of nine months. 5. That, the petitioner was a Teacher and has been falsely implicated in this case because of the dispute going on between the school mangement and parents of the student. 6. That, the settled principle of law is that after long lapse of time and the change of circumstances the sentence can be reduced or be set aside. In the present case the petitioner has changed his attitude and did not indulge himself in any kind of cases till date, the petitioner also dedicate his life for the bright future of the student and he has therefore did not get married till date. CRLREV No. 133 of 2006 Page 2 of 19 7. That, taking into consideration the change of circumstances and the lapse of 28 valuable years, the petitioner is entitled to get the lesser simple imprisonment punishment instead of any Rigorous imprisonment for the interest of justice; 8. That, unless the petitioner be heard this Hon’ble Court through his counsel for a fair, better and proper adjudication of the case, then the petitioner will suffer irreparably and will prejudiced.” 4. After an order or judgment in a criminal case is signed , the Court becomes functus officio and cannot alter or review the judgment in view of the provisions of Section – 362 of the Cr.p.C which is reproduced below : “362. Court not to alter judgment.- Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.” 5.
Legal Reasoning
This I.A was heard on 22.11.2024. After hearing Mr. D.P. Nanda, learned Senior Counsel and perusing the pages of the placitum of the decision in the case of the State of Punjab vrs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770 produced by the learned counsel, the I.A was dismissed in open court observing that a detailed order would be passed after going through the decision of the Supreme Court, which had not been produced by the learned counsel. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (supra) after referring to a number of previous decisions has in no uncertain terms held that the criminal court has no power of review after a CRLREV No. 133 of 2006 Page 3 of 19 judgment has been rendered except for correction of clerical or arithmetical errors. It become functus officio once the order disposing of the case has been signed but has power to alter or review its judgment before it is signed. 7. It has also held that the inherent power of the High court under Section – 482 of the Cr.P.C is intended to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. Such power cannot be exercised to do something which is expressly barred under the Cr.P.C. The power of recall is different from the power of altering/ reviewing the judgment. But a party seeking recall/alteration has to establish that it was not at fault. If the order which has been pronounced is without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice or where the order has been pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party affected by it or where an order was obtained by abuse of the process of court which would really amount to its being without jurisdiction, inherent powers under Section – 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised to recall such order as such order would be a nullity. 8. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted below : “ III. BAR TO REVIEW/ALTER- JUDGMENT 44. There is no power of review with the Criminal Court after judgment has been rendered. The High Court can alter or review its judgment before it is signed. When an order is passed, it cannot be reviewed. Section 362 Cr.P.C. is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a Court, the said Court in the absence of a specific statutory CRLREV No. 133 of 2006 Page 4 of 19 provision becomes functus officio and is disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for any relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The Court becomes functus officio the moment the order for disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or arithmetical error. There is also no provision for modification of the judgment. (See: Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 43; and Chhanni v. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 3051). 45. Moreover, the prohibition contained in Section 362 Cr.P.C. is absolute; after the judgment is signed, even the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no authority or jurisdiction to alter/review the same. (See: Moti Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 1994 SC 1544; Hari Singh Mann (supra); and State of Kerala v.M.M. Manikantan Nair, AIR 2001 SC 2145). 46. If a judgment has been pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice or where the order has been pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party affected by it or where an order was obtained by abuse of the process of court which would really amount to its being without jurisdiction, inherent powers can be exercised to recall such order for the reason that in such an eventuality the order becomes a nullity and the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. would not operate. In such eventuality, the judgment is manifestly contrary to the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice. The power of recall CRLREV No. 133 of 2006 Page 5 of 19 is different from the power of altering/reviewing the judgment. However, the party seeking recall/alteration has to establish that it was not at fault. (Vide: Chitawan & Ors. v. Mahboob Ilahi, 1970 Crl.L.J. 378; Deepak Thanwardas Balwani v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 1985 Crl.L.J. 23; Habu v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1987 Raj. 83 (F.B.); Swarth Mahto & Anr. v. Dharmdeo Narain Singh, AIR 1972 SC 1300; Makkapati Nagaswara Sastri v. S.S. Satyanarayan, AIR 1981 SC 1156; Asit Kumar Kar v. State of West Bengal & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 703; and Vishnu Agarwal v. State of U.P. & Anr., AIR 2011 SC 1232). 47. This Court by virtue of Article 137 of the Constitution has been invested with an express power to review any judgment in Criminal Law and while no such power has been conferred on the High Court, inherent power of the court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code itself. (Vide: State Represented by D.S.P., S.B.C.I.D., Chennai v. K.V. Rajendran & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 46). 48. In Smt. Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 736, this Court held that the prohibition in Section 362 Cr.P.C. against the Court altering or reviewing its judgment, is subject to what is "otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force". Those words, however, refer to those provisions only where the Court has been expressly authorised by the Code or other law to alter or review its judgment. The inherent power of the Court is not contemplated by the saving provision contained in CRLREV No. 133 of 2006 Page 6 of 19 Section 362 Cr.P.C.and, therefore, the attempt to invoke that power can be of no avail. 49. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the criminal justice delivery system does not clothe the court to add or delete any words, except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error as specifically been provided under the statute itself after pronouncement of the judgment as the Judge becomes functus officio. Any mistake or glaring omission is left to be corrected only by the appropriate forum in accordance with law. IV. INHERENT POWERS UNDER SECTION 482 Cr.P.C. 50. “3…..The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. Such power cannot be exercised to do something which is expressly barred under the Cr.P.C. If any consideration of the facts by way of review is not permissible under the Cr.P.C. and is expressly barred, it is not for the Court to exercise its inherent power to reconsider the matter and record a conflicting decision. If there had been change in the circumstances of the case, it would be in order for the High Court to exercise its inherent powers in the prevailing circumstances and pass appropriate orders to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Where there are no such changed circumstances and the decision has to be arrived at on the facts that existed as on the date of the earlier order, the CRLREV No. 133 of 2006 Page 7 of 19 exercise of the power to reconsider the same materials to arrive at different conclusion is in effect a review, which is expressly barred under Section 362 Cr.P.C.” (See: Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee & Anr, (1990) 2 SCC 437). 51. The inherent power of the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is saved only where an order has been passed by the criminal court which is required to be set aside to secure the ends of justice or where the proceeding pending before a court, amounts to abuse of the process of court. Therefore, such powers can be exercised by the High Court in relation to a matter pending before a criminal court or where a power is exercised by the court under the Cr.P.C. Inherent powers cannot be exercised assuming that the statute conferred an unfettered and arbitrary jurisdiction, nor can the High Court act at its whim or caprice. The statutory power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. (Vide: Kurukshetra University & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr., AIR 1977 SC 2229; and State of W.B. & Ors. v. Sujit Kumar Rana, (2004) 4 SCC 129). 52. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Cr.P.C. for the redressal of the grievance of the aggrieved party or where alternative remedy is available. Such powers cannot be exercised as against the express bar of the law and engrafted in any other provision of the Cr.P.C. Such powers can be exercised to secure the ends of justice and to CRLREV No. 133 of 2006 Page 8 of 19 prevent the abuse of the process of court. However, such expressions do not confer unlimited/unfettered jurisdiction on the High Court as the "ends of justice" and "abuse of the process of the court" have to be dealt with in accordance with law including the procedural law and not otherwise. Such powers can be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice as the courts have been conferred such inherent jurisdiction, in absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, or such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice as provided in the legal maxim "quando lex aliquid alique, concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest". However, the High Court has not been given nor does it possess any inherent power to make any order, which in the opinion of the court, could be in the interest of justice as the statutory provision is not intended to by-pass the procedure prescribed. (Vide:Lalit Mohan Mondal & Ors. v. Benoyendra Nath Chatterjee, AIR 1982 SC 785; Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh v. State of Gujarat & Anr., AIR 2006 SC 915; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., AIR 2006 SC 2872; Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 251; and Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 3077).” 9. In the present Criminal Revision, ample opportunity was given to the petitioner for hearing of the case. The case was listed for hearing on 04.03.2024, 20.03.2024, 21.03.2024, 04.04.2024, 04.04.2024, 25.04.2024, 03.05.2024, 14.05.2024 and 15.05.2024 and was adjourned CRLREV No. 133 of 2006 Page 9 of 19 on eight occasions, either suo motu and also on the request of the learned counsel. On 03.05.2024, considering the mention made on behalf of the petitioner that Mr. D.P. Nanda, learned Senior Counsel had been engaged to argue the matter, the case was adjourned to 14.05.2024. On 14.05.2024 no counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioners so the case was adjourned to 15.05.2024. Neither on 14.05.2024, nor or 15.05.2024, did any counsel appear on behalf of the petitioner nor was any prayer for adjournment made. So after perusing the records and hearing the learned State Counsel, the criminal revision was dismissed on 15.05.2024 with modification in sentence. The judgment was pronounced in separate sheets. 10. So it cannot be said that there were violations of principles of natural justice or that opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner for which the judgment is a nullity, so as to necessitate exercise of power under Section – 482 Cr.P.C by ignoring the provision Section – 362 of the Cr.P.C. 11. The orders passed between 04.03.2024 and 15.05.2024 are extracted below : “Order No.4 04.03.2024 (Through hybrid mode) 1. None appears for the petitioner when the matter is called. The matter was last listed on 27.04.2006, when the revision admitted, and the petitioner had been directed to be released on bail. 2. List this case on 18.03.2024. CRLREV No. 133 of 2006 Page 10 of 19 3. Registry is directed to inform Mr. J. N. Rath and Mr. S. K. Jethy, learned counsel for the petitioner regarding their non- appearance today and the next date of listing of the case. Their telephone/mobile numbers should be available in the High Court Bar Association Telephone Directory. Order No.5 20.03.2024 (Through hybrid mode) 1. A strange noting has been furnished by the Dealing Assistant, who has made the noting that Mr. S. K. Jethy, learned counsel for the petitioner has been informed about his non- appearance through phone call and copy of order No. 4 dated 04.03.2024 is yet to be received. There was no order for providing a copy of the order to the Dealing Assistant. As Mr. S. K. Jethy, learned counsel for the petitioner has been informed about his non- appearance in the case pursuant to order dated 04.03.2024, it is presumed that the copy of the order was available with the dealing assistant. Such endorsement in the order sheet should not be repeated. 2. None appears for the petitioner when the matter is called. In order to give another chance to learned counsel for the petitioner to make his submission in the said case, list this case tomorrow, i.e. on 21.03.2024. Order No.6 21.03.2024 (Through hybrid mode) 1. Mr. L. Rayatsingh, learned counsel prays for an adjournment on behalf of Mr. S.K. Jethy, learned counsel for the CRLREV No. 133 of 2006 Page 11 of 19 petitioner stating that the file which is of the year 2006 has recently been located and they need some time for preparation. 2. List this matter on 04.04.2024. Order No.7 04.04.2024 (Through hybrid mode) 1. Mr. L.N. Rayatsingh, learned counsel submits that he has received Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner and will file the same tomorrow and prays for adjournment of two weeks time in order to obtain the certified copies of the documents and argue the case. 2. Considering the said prayer, list this matter on 22.04.2024. Order No.8 25.04.2024 (Through hybrid mode) 1. Mr. L. Rayatsingh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.K. Jethy, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for another adjournment in order to obtain the certified copy of the depositions of the witnesses. 2. When the matter was listed on 04.03.2024, none had appeared for the petitioner for which Registry had been directed to inform Mr.J.N.Rath and Mr.S.K.Jethy, learned counsel for the petitioner regarding their non-appearance and the next date of listing of the case. On 20.03.2024, when the matter was listed, none had appeared for the petitioner. On 21.03.2024, when the matter was listed, Mr.Rayatsingh, learned counsel submitted that the file has been recently located and they need some time for preparation CRLREV No. 133 of 2006 Page 12 of 19 for which the matter was adjourned to 04.04.2024. On 04.04.2024, when the matter was listed, Mr.Rayatsingh, learned counsel submitted that he has received Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner and will file the same by 05.04.2024 and prayed for two weeks adjournment in order to obtain the certified copies of the documents and argue the case. The matter is listed today, i.e. after 20 days and Mr.Rayatsingh, learned counsel has again prayed for an adjournment stating that he has not received the certified copies of the depositions of the witnesses. 3. Since this case is of the year 2006, it is directed that if the learned counsel for the petitioner produces a pen drive before the Registry by 29.04.2024, he shall be supplied the soft copies of the depositions of the witnesses. 4. List this matter on 03.05.2024. Order No.9 03.05.2024 (Through hybrid mode) 1. Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel has produced the instructions of the Inspector-in-Charge, Nimakhandi P.S., Berhampur wherein it is stated that the petitioner–Balgopal Satpathy is alive and working as Headmaster of Buguda High School and is staying at Nimakhandi village. The said instructions are taken on record. 2. Prayer for adjournment is made on behalf of Mr. D.P.Nanda, learned Senior Counsel stating that he has been recently engaged by the petitioner. CRLREV No. 133 of 2006 Page 13 of 19 3. Since this case is of the year 2006 and for last two months on five occasions, the matter has been adjourned, I am not inclined to adjourn the matter after vacation. 4. List this matter on 14.05.2024. Order No.10 14.05.2024 (Through hybrid mode) 1. This Revision had been admitted on 27.04.2006. The LCR had been called for and the petitioner has been directed to be released on bail of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court in GR Case No. 106 of 1996. 2. On 04.03.2024, when the matter was called, no counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner for which the case was adjourned to 18.03.2024 and the Registry has been directed to inform Mr. J.N. Rath and Mr. S. K. Jethy, learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the non-appearance and the next date of listing of the case. 3. On 20.03.2024, none appeared for the petitioner for which in order to give another chance to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was directed to be listed on 21.03.2024. 4. On 21.03.2024, Mr. L. Rayatsingh, learned counsel prayed for an adjournment on behalf of Mr. S. K. Jethy, learned counsel for the petitioner stating that as the file is of the year 2006, it has been recently located and they need some time for preparation, for which the case was adjourned to 04.04.2024. CRLREV No. 133 of 2006 Page 14 of 19 5. On 04.04.2024, Mr. L. Rayatsingh, learned counsel submitted that he has received the vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner and filed the same on tomorrow and prayed for an adjournment for two weeks to obtain the certified copies of the documents and argue the case. Considering the said prayer, the case had been adjourned to 22.04.2024. 6. The matter was thereafter taken up on 25.04.2024, on which date Mr. L. Rayatsingh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. K. Jethy, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for an adjournment in order to obtain the certified copies of the depositions of the witnesses. It was directed that if the learned counsel for the petitioner produces the pen drive before the Registry by 29.04.2024, he would be supplied with soft copies of the depositions of the witnesses and the matter was adjourned to 03.05.2024. 7. On 03.05.2024, Ms. Payal Ray, learned counsel prayed for an adjournment on behalf of Mr. D. P. Nanda, learned Senior Counsel stating that he has been recently engaged by the petitioner. On the said date Mr. S. S. Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel had produced the instructions of the Inspector-in-charge, Nimakhandi Police Station, Berhampur, wherein it was stated that the petitioner Balgopaalm Satapathy was alive and working as Headmaster of Guguda High School and staying at Nimakhandi Village. The said instructions were taken on record. Since the case is of the year 2006 and for the last two CRLREV No. 133 of 2006 Page 15 of 19 months on five occasions the matter had been adjourned, the case was directed to be listed on 14.05.2024. 8. Today, when the matter is listed, no counsel appears on behalf of the petitioner. In the interest of justice, list the case tomorrow, i.e. on 15.05.2024. If no counsel appears on behalf of the petitioner tomorrow, this Court may be constrained to vacate the order passed on 27.04.2006 in Misc. Case No. 200 of 2006 releasing the petitioner on bail and issue NBW of arrest against the petitioner or dispose of the Revision on the basis of materials on record. Order No.11 15.05.2024 (Through hybrid mode) 1. This Revision had been admitted on 27.04.2006. The LCR had been called for and the petitioner has been directed to be released on bail of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court in GR Case No. 106 of 1996. 2. On 04.03.2024, when the matter was called, no counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner for which the case was adjourned to 18.03.2024 and the Registry has been directed to inform Mr. J.N. Rath and Mr. S. K. Jethy, learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the non-appearance and the next date of listing of the case. 3. On 20.03.2024, none appeared for the petitioner for which in order to give another chance to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was directed to be listed on 21.03.2024. CRLREV No. 133 of 2006 Page 16 of 19 4. On 21.03.2024, Mr. L. Rayatsingh, learned counsel prayed for an adjournment on behalf of Mr. S. K. Jethy, learned counsel for the petitioner stating that as the file is of the year 2006, it has been recently located and they need some time for preparation, for which the case was adjourned to 04.04.2024. 5. On 04.04.2024, Mr. L. Rayatsingh, learned counsel submitted that he has received the vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner and would file the same on the next day and prayed for an adjournment for two weeks to obtain the certified copies of the documents and argue the case. Considering the said prayer, the case had been adjourned to 22.04.2024. 6. The matter was thereafter taken up on 25.04.2024, on which date Mr. L. Rayatsingh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.K. Jethy, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for an adjournment in order to obtain the certified copies of the depositions of the witnesses. It was directed on that day that if the learned counsel produces a pen drive before the Registry by 29.04.2024, he would be supplied with soft copies of the depositions of the witnesses and the matter was adjourned to 03.05.2024. 7. On 03.05.2024, Ms. Payal Ray, learned counsel prayed for an adjournment on behalf of Mr. D. P. Nanda, learned Senior Counsel stating that Mr. Nanda had been recently engaged by the petitioner. On the said date Mr. S. S. Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel had produced the instructions of the Inspector-in-charge, Nimakhandi Police Station, Berhampur, wherein it was stated that the petitioner Balgopaalm Satapathy was CRLREV No. 133 of 2006 Page 17 of 19 alive and working as Headmaster of Guguda High School and staying at Nimakhandi Village. The said instructions were taken on record. Since the case is of the year 2006 and for the last two months on five occasions the matter had been adjourned, the case was directed to be listed on 14.05.2024. 8. Today, when the matter is taken up, none appears for the petitioner when the matter is called. 9. Since the Criminal Revision is of the year 2006 and the record of the lower court are available, I have gone through the records and decided to dispose of the Criminal Revision on the basis of materials on record. 10. 11. Judgment in separate sheet is pronounced in Court. The Criminal Revision is dismissed with modification in sentence.” 12. After perusing the impugned judgments and the depositions of the witnesses and hearing the learned State Counsel, I did not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner under Section 354 of IPC. But as almost thirty years had elapsed since the incident, the sentence was modified from two years Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) to one year R.I. This sentence cannot be said to be excessive or without jurisdiction, so as to attract exercise of power under Section – 482 of the Cr.P.C to modify the sentence to fine only. 13. An apparent typographical / clerical error in paragraph 22 of the judgment dated 15.05.2024 has not been pointed out by learned counsel CRLREV No. 133 of 2006 Page 18 of 19 for the petitioner, but was noticed before signing this judgment. The words “in default to rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months” in paragraph 22 are required to be deleted as no fine has been imposed. 14.
Decision
In view of the above discussion and circumstances and in view of the bar under Section – 362 Cr.P.C., I am not inclined to modify or recall judgment dated 15.05.2024 in Criminal Revision No. 133 of 2006 other than correcting the typographical error in paragraph 22 by deleting the words “in default to rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months”. 15. The interim application being bereft of merit has already been dismissed. 16. Copy of the judgment and the order along with the lower court records be sent to the learned trial court forthwith, if not already done. ……………………… (Savitri Ratho, J) Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 22nd November, 2024. Puspanjali Mohapatra, Personal Assistant. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 05-Dec-2024 16:11:22 CRLREV No. 133 of 2006 Page 19 of 19