Shri Padmadhar Tamuli vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 777 Gua

                                                                                Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010135172019




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

                                  Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/516/2019

            SHRI PADMADHAR TAMULI
            S/O- LATE LEBURAM TAMULI, R/O- HALOWAPATHAR, P.S. TEOK, DIST.-
            JORHAT, ASSAM.

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
            REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM.

            2:SRI MADHURJYA JYOTI TAMULY
             S/O- LATE NUMOL CHANDRA TAMULY
             R/O- HALOWAPATHAR
             P.S. TEOK
             DIST.- JORHAT
            ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS. B SARMA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM




                                   BEFORE
                     HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

                                            ORDER

03-03-2021 Heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent no. 1.

This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963 filed by the Page No.# 2/2

appellant praying for condoning the delay of 600 days in preferring the Criminal Appeal (J) against the Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 12(J-J)/15, convicting and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1893.

The applicant has stated that he has been serving out the sentence for last 3 ½ years since the impugned Judgment was pronounced on 21.07.2017. It is also stated that the applicant was not aware of the facilities provided by the State by way of free Legal Aid, who could not arrange an advocate to defend his case by filing an appeal.

Having heard the learned counsel of both sides and on perusal of the explanations for delay provided in Paragraph-4 of the accompanying application, I am satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in not preferring the connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.

Accordingly, the delay of 600 days in preferring the connected appeal is condoned.

Registry to register the connect Crl. Appeal and list accordingly. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed off.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant