THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The instant application is allowed condoning the delay 25 days in preferring the
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. The instant application is allowed condoning the delay 25 days in preferring the connected appeal.
Judgment
2:ANJALI DEY W/O. SHRI JAYANTA DEY R/O. BALUGADA SABJIBARI P/S. TINSUKIA DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN-78612 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. N CHOUDHURY, FOR LEGAL AID Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
13.06.2025 [Manish Choudhury, J] ORDER Heard Mr. N.R. Sharma, learned counsel representing Ms. N. Choudhury, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant-appellant and Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party 1-respondent State. Page No.# 2/3
The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of delay of 25 days, which have occurred in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal. The accompanying criminal appeal is preferred against a Judgment and Order dated 26.12.2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, POCSO, Tinsukia in POCSO Case no. 57/2019. By the Judgment and Order dated 26.12.2024, the applicant-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-.
We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant application.
Ms. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has fairly submitted that since the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, the interest of justice would be better sub-served if the accompanying criminal appeal is heard on merits by condoning the delay in preferring the accompanying appeal, after effecting service of notice upon the opposite party no. 2-informant.
Having gone through the statements and averments made in this application, we are of the considered view that the applicant-appellant has been able to make out a prima facie case showing sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 25 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal.
We are also of the considered view that since the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, interest of justice will be better sub-served if the connected appeal is heard on merits after condoning the period of delay.
Operative part
The instant application is allowed condoning the delay 25 days in preferring the connected appeal.
Issuance of notice to the opposite party no. 2-informant is dispensed with at this stage as the opposite party no. 2-informant will be heard when the accompanying criminal appeal is heard on merits, after ensuring service of notice, if the opposite party no. 2-informant chooses to appear. Page No.# 3/3
The Registry to register the accompanying appeal and thereafter, to list the same in the admission column. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The instant application is allowed condoning the delay 25 days in preferring the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 6.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.