CRLREV No.687 of 2026 Page 1 of 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLREV NO.687 of 2026

CNR NO. ODHC010696572026

(In the matter of application under Section 442 read

with Sec.438 of BNSS).

Sripati Charan Badajena … Petitioner

-versus-

State of Orissa … Opposite Party

For Petitioner : Mr. M.K.Chand, proxy counsel

appearing on behalf of

Mr.R.R.Mishra, Advocate

For Opposite Party : Mr.R.B.Mishra, Advocate

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT: 23.09.2026(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This revision is directed against the impugned

order dated 13.08.2026 passed by learned 3

rd

Addl.

Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in CT Case No. 71 of

2026 declining to invoke the provision of Sec. 250(1) of

the BNSS on the ground that the accused has preferred

the discharge application beyond the statutory period of

60 days.

CRLREV No.687 of 2026 Page 2 of 5

2. Heard Mr.Manas Kumar Chand, learned proxy

counsel appearing along with Mr.Rashmi Ranjan Mishra,

learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.B.Mishra,

learned Addl. PP. in the matter and perused the record.

3. Admittedly, the learned 3

rd

Addl. Sessions

Judge, Bhubaneswar has refused to invoke the

jurisdiction U/S. 250(1) of the BNSS for the discharge

petition being not filed within sixty days, but the

learned counsel for the petitioner has make sincere

effort to impress upon the Court that the delay is not

attributable to the accused -petitioner since the

petitioner was directed to appear before the Sessions

Court on 26.02.2026 and unfortunately the petitioner

could not appear on that date and the matter was

adjourned to 07.07.2026 and, therefore, the filing of

discharge petition within the time period is not

attributable to the petitioner. Further, Mr.Chand also

contends that the police paper has not been supplied to

the accused persons, but there is nothing on record to

suggest that the accused-petitioner was not supplied

CRLREV No.687 of 2026 Page 3 of 5

with the police papers, much less the police paper has

to be supplied before the date of commitment and no

where the petitioner is stated to have complained

before the committing Court about non-supply of police

paper. It is also a fact that the case record was

advanced on 26.05.2026 by the accused to regularize

his appearance before the Sessions Court, but even on

that date, no discharge petition has been admittedly

filed by the accused petitioner and thereby, the delay in

approaching the Court with a discharge petition can be

solely attributable to the accused and no latches can be

found on the part of the Sessions Court/Court in seisin

over the matter. No doubt, the revision-petitioner has

relied upon the decision of High Court of Gujarat in the

case of Kartikbhai Jashubhai Patel Vrs. State of

Gujarat; MANU/GJ/1443/2026 , but this decision is

not applicable to the petitioner inasmuch as, the

accused therein has satisfactorily explained the delay in

preferring the discharge petition and the petitioner

herein has not been able to explain the delay

satisfactorily since neither the petitioner herein

CRLREV No.687 of 2026 Page 4 of 5

appeared before the Sessions Court on the first date

fixed for appearance after commitment nor could he

filed any discharge petition when he appeared in the

said Court by advancing the case record nor could he

filed any discharge petition till it was filed on

13.07.2026, although the date of commitment was

02.02.2026 and that too, filing the discharge petition

on 13.07.2026 without satisfactorily explaining the

delay.

4. After repealing of the CrPC, the BNSS has

come into force with effect from 1

st

July, 2024 and Sec.

250(1) of the BNSS provides that the accused may

prefer an application for discharge within a period of

sixty days from the date of commitment of the case

U/S. 232 of the BNSS. In this situation, when the

accused-petitioner has appeared before the Court on

the date of commitment, he must have known with

regard to date of his appearance before the Court of

Sessions, but despite that the accused has not

appeared before the Court of Sessions on the first date

CRLREV No.687 of 2026 Page 5 of 5

fixed for appearance and later regularized his

appearance by advancing the case record . The plea of

the accused-petitioner for non-supply of police paper

appears to be not convincing since Sec. 232 of BNSS

which provides the procedure for commitment of the

case to Court of Sessions makes it clear that before

commitment, the committing Court has to comply Sec.

231 of the BNSS which provides for supply of police

paper to an accused and, therefore, such plea of the

accused-petitioner appears to be afterthought one.

5. In this fact and situation, since this Court does

not find any latches on the part of the Court in seisin

over the matter to consider the discharge petition of

the revision-petitioner, the present criminal revision

being premature and not maintainable stands

dismissed.

(G. Satapathy)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

Dated the 23

rd

day of September, 2026/Kishore