High Court of Assam · 2025
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 24 Jun 2025
- Bench
- MANISH CHOUDHURY, MITALI THAKURIA
Outcome
Allowed
The instant application is allowed condoning the delay eighteen days in preferring the
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. The instant application is allowed condoning the delay eighteen days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal.
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, MS. B LASKAR,MS. H G DAS,MS. P KHATUN,A MISHRA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA Date : 24.06.2025 [Manish Choudhury, J.] ORDER Heard Mr. I. Hoque, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party-respondent no. 1, State of Assam.
The instant interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of delay of eighteen days, which have occurred in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal. The applicant as the appellant has preferred the Page No. 2/3 accompanying criminal appeal, Criminal Appeal no. 5705/2025 [Filing Number] under Section 415[2], Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 against a Judgment dated
25.03.2025 and an Order on Sentence dated 02.04.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge [FTC], Karbi Anglong, Diphu in NDPS Case no. 10/2023. By the Judgment and the Order on Sentence, the applicant-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 21[c], Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances [NDPS] Act, 1985 and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another six months.
We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant application, more particularly, Paragraph 6 thereof.
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 eighteen days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal.
We are also of the considered view that since the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years, interest of justice will be better sub-served if the connected appeal is heard on merits after condoning the period of delay.
Mr. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has fairly submitted that since the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years, the State has no objection if the accompanying criminal appeal is heard on merits by condoning the delay in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal.
Operative part
The instant application is allowed condoning the delay eighteen days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal.
The Registry to register the accompanying appeal and thereafter, to list the same in the admission column. Page No. 3/3 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 eighteen days in preferring the
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 24 Jun 2025. The bench was MANISH CHOUDHURY, MITALI THAKURIA.
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.