Orissa High Court
Yudhistira Kuldeep vs State Of Orissa …. Opposite Party on 23 February, 2026
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.105 of 2006
(In the matter of an application under Section 397 and
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)
Yudhistira Kuldeep
.... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Orissa .... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Joshi, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF HEARING :10.02.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23.02.2026
V. Narasingh, J.
1. The judgment dated 20.01.2006 passed by the
learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nuapada in
Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2004 thereby affirming the
order of conviction dated 04.08.2004 of the Petitioner
passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Nuapada in 2(a) C.C.
Case No.69 of 2003 (T.R. Case No.724 of 2003)
Page 1 of 6
CRLREV No.105 of 2006
under Section 47(a)1 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise
Act, 1915 and imposing a sentence of S.I. for two
years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousands Only) and in default to undergo S.I. for
three months, is assailed in this criminal revision.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on
09.04.2003 at about 10.20 A.M., during patrolling in
village Brundapat, the Petitioner was found coming
with a rubber tube containing liquor. When a blue
litmus paper test was conducted, it turned red, and
on further testing by hydrometer, the temperature
and strength of the liquor were indicated. Since the
same was being carried in an unauthorized manner, it
was seized and, on completion of enquiry, P.R. under
Section 47(a)1 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act,
1915 was submitted against the accused Petitioner.
3. During the course of trial, the prosecution
examined two witnesses, namely P.W.1, the A.S.I.,
and P.W.2, the S.I. of Excise. After going through the
materials on record and rejecting the claim of the
Petitioner that, in the absence of independent
1
47. Penalty for unlawful import, export, transport, manufacture,
possession, sale etc : If any person, in contravention of this Act, or of any rule,
notification or order made, issued or given, or of any licence or permit granted,
under this Act,
(a) imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects, possesses or sells [any
intoxicant]
Page 2 of 6
CRLREV No.105 of 2006
witnesses and chemical examination report, the
prosecution case ought not to be believed, the
learned Trial Court negatived the plea of false
implication and found the Petitioner guilty of the
offence under Section 47(a)1 of the Bihar and Orissa
Excise Act, and directed him to undergo S.I. for two
years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand only), in default to suffer S.I. for three
months. Such order was affirmed by the Appellate
Court and is the subject matter of challenge before
this Court in revision, as noted above.
4. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
5. At the outset, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submits that the incident had taken place
almost two decades ago and, taking into account the
nature of evidence on record, does not wish to assail
the conviction on merits.
Placing reliance on the recent dictum of the
Apex Court in the case of Chellammal and anr. V.
State represented by the Inspector of Police2, he
submits that it’s a fit case for the Petitioner to be
2
Chellammal v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
870
Page 3 of 6
CRLREV No.105 of 2006
granted the benefit under the Probation of Offenders
Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘P.O. Act’).
6. Such submission is opposed by the learned
counsel for the State, inter alia, on the ground that
there is clinching evidence against the Petitioner and,
there being no infirmity, the benefit of the P.O. Act
ought not to be extended, though it is fairly
submitted that, in terms of Section 113 of the P.O.
Act, there is no embargo on this Court enlarging the
accused Petitioner upon application of the P.O. Act.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Joshi,
on instruction submits that the Petitioner has no
criminal proclivity save and except the present case
3
11. Courts competent to make order under the Act, appeal and revision
and powers of courts in appeal and revision.– (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code or any other law, an order under this Act may be made by
any court empowered to try and sentence the offender to imprisonment and also by
the High Court or any other court when the case comes before it on appeal or in
revision.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, where an order under Section
3 or Section 4 is made by any court trying the offender (other than a High Court),
an appeal shall lie to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the sentences of
the former court.
(3) In any case where any person under twenty-one years of age is found guilty of
having committed an offence and the court by which he is found guilty declines to
deal with him under Section 3 or Section 4 and passes against him any sentence of
imprisonment with or without fine from which no appeal lies or is preferred, then,
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law, the court to
which appeals ordinarily lie from the sentences of the former court may, either of
its own motion or on an application made to it by the convicted person or the
probation officer, call for and examine the record of the case and pass such order
thereon as it thinks fit.
(4) When an order has been made under Section 3 or Section 4 in respect of an
offender, the Appellate Court or the High Court in the exercise of its power of
revision may set aside such order and in lieu thereof pass sentence on such
offender according to law:
Provided that the Appellate Court or the High Court in revision shall not
inflict a greater punishment than might have been inflicted by the court by which
the offender was found guilty.
Page 4 of 6
CRLREV No.105 of 2006
and that, in the meantime, the Petitioner has never
misused the liberty while on bail. It is further
submitted that he has home and hearth within the
jurisdiction of the Court in seisin and, in this
background, he may be enlarged on probation under
the P.O. Act.
8. Considering the rival submissions and relying
on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Chellammal(supra)2, this Court finds substance and
force in the submissions of the learned counsel for
the Petitioner and holds that, this is a fit case where
the provisions of the P.O. Act are to be invoked.
9. Hence, in the given factual matrix of the case
at hand and in view of the evidence on record, while
maintaining the conviction recorded against the
Petitioner by the learned Trial Court and the Appellate
Court but, having regard to the facts and
circumstances as noted above, this Court is inclined
to direct the release of the Petitioner on probation
under Section 44 of the P.O. Act, on conditions to be
settled by the Trial Court.
4
4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good
conduct.– (1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence
not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the
person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the
case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is
expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding
Page 5 of 6
CRLREV No.105 of 2006
10. The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed
of.
11. The bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are
discharged.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 23rd February, 2026/Santoshi
anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may,
instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, direct that he be released on
his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence
when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may
direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:
Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is
satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular
occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the
offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.
(2) Before making any order under sub-section (1), the court shall take into
consideration the report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in relation to the
case.
(3) When an order under sub-section (1) is made, the court may, if it is of opinion
that in the interests of the offender and of the public it is expedient so to do, in
addition pass a supervision order directing that the offender shall remain under the
supervision of a probation officer named in the order during such period, not being
less than one year, as may be specified therein, and may in such supervision order
impose such conditions as it deems necessary for the due supervision of the
offender.
(4) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall require the
offender, before he is released, to enter into a bond, with or without sureties, to
observe the conditions specified in such order and such additional conditions with
respect to residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other matter as the court
may, having regard to the particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for
preventing a repetition of the same offence or a commission of other offences by
the offender.
(5) The court making a supervision order under sub-section (3) shall explain to the
Signature Not Verified offender the terms and conditions of the order and shall forthwith furnish one copy
Digitally Signed of the supervision order to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and the
Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA probation officer concerned.
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 24-Feb-2026 10:21:50
Page 6 of 6
CRLREV No.105 of 2006
