Gauhati High Court
Smti Prenali Marak vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 25 August, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010213032019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./1017/2019
SMTI PRENALI MARAK
W/O LATE KELVIN SANGMA, R/O RAMKRISHNA MISSION ROAD,
BIRUBARI, P.O.-GOPINATH NAGAR, P.S.-PALTANBAZAR, DIST-KAMRUP
(M), ASSAM, PIN-781008
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
2:PRAGATI IMPEX LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR
SRI NARENDRA KUMAR SETHIA
C/O CHAND MARKET
2ND FLOOR
A.T. ROAD
GUWAHATI-01
P.S.-PANBAZAR
DIST-KAMRUP (M)
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D SARMAH
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 25-08-2022
Heard D. Sarmah, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. B.
Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent no. 1
and Mr. G. K. Medhi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
2. This application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is preferred,
challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated
27.03.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 01,
Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in Misc. Case No. 09/2019.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati has dismissed the
petition filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for
condonation of delay of 2 (two) years and 4 (four) months in filing the
connected appeal against the judgment and order dated 14.09.2016,
passed by the learned SDJM, Sadar No. II, Guwahati (M), wherein the
petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
for 12 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- with default
stipulation under Section 138 of the NI Act.
4. Mr. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the
petitioner was suffering from chronic diseases and therefore, she could not
prefer the connected appeal in time and when she recovered from the
diseases, then 2 (two) years 4 (four) months had already elapsed and that
Page No.# 3/4
the delay is not intentional and therefore, it is contended to allow the
petition by setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge No. 01, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in Misc. Case
No. 09/2019, dated 27.03.2019.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the respondent
no. 2, referring to his affidavit dated 03.02.2021, submits that he has no
objection in the event of setting aside the impugned order, by which, the
learned Court below has refused to condone the delay of 2 (two) years 4
(four) months in not filing the connected appeal preferred by the
petitioner. Mr. Medhi further submits that he has already received the
compensation amount from the petitioner.
6. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I
have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on
record, especially the medical documents which are enclosed with the
petition as Annexure-2 series, which shows that the petitioner was
suffering from different ailments including spinal injury with bed sore, with
type II diabetes Mellitus.
7. Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has not disputed
the grounds assigned by the petitioner for delay in filing the connected
appeal.
8. It appears that the delay appears to be not intentional and the cause
shown is sufficient to explain the same, therefore, the impugned order
dated 27.03.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.
01, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in Misc. Case No. 09/2019 stands set aside
and quashed.
Page No.# 4/4
9. In terms of above, this criminal petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
