Yesmin Begum vs Md. Abed Ali And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 1321 Gua

                                                                             Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010165612020




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/539/2020

            YESMIN BEGUM
            D/O- NIJAMUDDIN ALI, R/O- AZARA, LOWER MIRZAPUR, P.S. AZARA,
            DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            MD. ABED ALI AND ANR
            S/O- LATE HACHIM ALI, R/O- GARIGAON, SIDILAPUR, P.O. UNIVERSITY,
            P.S. JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI-13, DIST.- KAMRUP(M).

            2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
             REP. BY THE P.P.
            ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. C S RAY

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM




                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

                                           ORDER

Date : 05-04-2021

This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 923 days in preferring the connected Criminal Appeal No. 212/2020.

Heard Mr. CS Ray, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. AK Azad, learned Page No.# 2/2

counsel for the respondent No. 1. The State respondent No. 2 is a formal party.

Perused the petition and the grounds mentioned therein justifying the cause of delay.

The grounds taken in the petition is that after the judgment was passed on 06.12.2016, the certified copy thereof was received on 15.12.2016 by the applicant. But, since the petitioner was suffering from mental depression and was sick, she could file an appeal only after recovery from such mental depression. There is no supporting material filed along with the application to justify the mental depression of the applicant. That apart, Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the stridhan properties which were given at the time of marriage of the present applicant and was entrusted with her husband/accused were not returned even after breaking of the marriage between them. However, the admitted position is that before the learned court below, the applicant/petitioner did not participate in the hearing of the case, thus raising her claim through evidence. As such, the learned court below has decided the case on merit even in the absence of the complainant.

This Court has also considered that the grounds taken by the applicant is not good and sufficient to condone the huge delay of 923 days. In the absence of any justifiable cause supported by any material, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay of 923 days and therefore the prayer stands rejected.

This interlocutory application stands disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant