CUTTACK, India, April 18 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on March 17:

Since both the appeals arise out of a common impugned judgment and involve the same cause of action, they were analogously heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

The present appeals have been preferred by as many as twenty-six appellants who stand convicted by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, vide judgment and order dated 25.03.1995 passed in S.T. Case No.18/72 of 1993, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9-B(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. On that count, each of the appellants has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and six months. It is also apt to note that one of the co-accused, namely, Ramesh Jena, has been acquitted of all the charges by the learned trial Court.

2. The present appeals are pending since 1995. When the matter was taken up for hearing, none had appeared on behalf of the appellants. Therefore, this Court requested Ms. Varsha Pattnayak and Ms. Anwesha Mishra, learned counsels, who are present in Court to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. They have readily accepted the same and after obtaining entire record assisted the Court very effectively. This Court records appreciation for the meaningful assistance rendered by Ms. Pattnayak and Ms. Mishra, learned counsels.

3. Heard Ms. Varsha Pattnayak and Ms. Anwesha Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants and Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

4. It is relevant to mention that during pendency of the present appeal, as many as nine appellants have expired in CRA No.319 of 1995, namely, the appellant No.1-Trinath Pradhan, appellant No.2-Prafulla Pradhan, appellant No.3-Baidyanath Pradhan, appellant No.8-Pabitra Pradhan, appellant No.9-Gadabari Pradhan, appellant No.13-Bhima Pradhan, appellant No.18-Udayanath Pradhan, appellant No.21- Brundaban Jena and appellant No.23-Arjun Pradhan. Therefore, CRA No.319 of 1995 qua the appellant Nos.1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 13, 18, 21 and 23 stood abated vide order dated 31.07.2025 in the absence of any application under Section 394 Cr.P.C. by the legal heirs or next friend of the deceased-appellants. Hence, the appeal is considered only in respect of other surviving appellants.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=cB5596dui5WUK%2Fjt%2BZW%2FNr8tfbXxaudsSjsD%2FixO2siQuG%2FTRbAepYl3nxqfoCt9&caseno=CRA/319/1995&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010126341995&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.