LINA MISHRA Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Perused the order dtd. 15/12/2025 where office has been directed to supply the copy of the paper book to the learned counsel in course of the day.

(2.) Office note indicates that the paper book has been supplied to both the learned counsel for the CBI as well as the learned counsel for the appellant but the names have not been indicated in the note. Hence, Registry shall also supply the information as to whom the paper book has been supplied and on which date.

(3.) Ms. Anima Dei, appearing on behalf of Mr. D.P. Das, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that they have received the paper book. Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned Special Retainer Counsel for CBI-Respondent further submits that since the case was not supposed to be taken up for hearing today, he had not verified in his office that the paper book has been supplied but subsequently verified from the Registry that it has been supplied to one Mr. Majhi. He submits that he has filed appearance memo on behalf of the Respondent today.