ISLAM UDDIN v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 23 May 2025
- Bench
- MANISH CHOUDHURY, YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
Outcome
Allowed
Therefore, the instant application is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant interlocutory application. Having gone through the explanation provided therein, we are of the view that the applicants-appellants have made out a case showing sufficient cause for condonation of delay of twenty-four days…
- Para 55. Having considered the facts that the period of delay is only twenty-four days in filing the accompanying criminal appeal; the period of delay has been properly explained; and the applicants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen years, we are of the…
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A BASUMATARY, MR. N J DUTTA,MR. K D SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER Date : 23.05.2025 [Manish Choudhury, J.] ORDER Heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicants-appellants and Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam for the opposite party-respondent, State of Assam. Page No. 2/3
The instant interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of delay of twenty-four days in preferring the connected criminal appeal. The connected criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 415[2], Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against a Judgment and Order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai [‘the trial court’, for short] in Special [NDPS] Case no. 114[H] of 2022. By the Judgment and Order dated
02.07.2024, the learned trial court has convicted both the applicants-appellants for the offence under Section 20[b][ii][C] of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances [NDPS] Act, 1985. They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another period of six months each.
We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant interlocutory application. Having gone through the explanation provided therein, we are of the view that the applicants-appellants have made out a case showing sufficient cause for condonation of delay of twenty-four days in preferring the connected criminal appeal.
Mr. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that as the period of delay is not much, interest of justice will be better subserved, considering the term of imprisonment, if the connected appeal is heard on merit.
Operative part
Having considered the facts that the period of delay is only twenty-four days in filing the accompanying criminal appeal; the period of delay has been properly explained; and the applicants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen years, we are of the view that the interest of justice will be better subserved if the connected criminal appeal is heard on merit after condoning the day of twenty-four days in preferring the connected criminal appeal. Therefore, the instant application is allowed.
Accordingly, the Registry to register the connected criminal appeal and thereafter, list Page No. 3/3 JUDGE JUDGE the same for admission. Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore, the instant application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 23 May 2025. The bench was MANISH CHOUDHURY, YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER.
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.