Mastakin Ali vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 559 Gua

                                                                      Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010088682020




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

                                 Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/424/2020

            MASTAKIN ALI
            S/O IDRISH ALI, R/O KONERIA BISHNUNAGAR, P.S. AND DIST.
            KARIMGANJ, ASSAM



            VERSUS

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

            2:ABDUL ROUF
             S/O LT. BASIR ALI
             R/O KUJAB P.O. MANIKGANJ
             P.S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ
            ASSAM PIN-78312

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S C BISWAS

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
                                                                        Page No.# 2/3

                         BEFORE
            HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

                                    ORDER

Date : 17-02-2022

Heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. B. Sarmah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1.

Though Office Note, dated 17.11.2021, reveals that notice has been served upon the respondent No. 2 and the A/D Card has been returned with the signature of the respondent No. 2, yet, none appears for the respondent No. 2. Since the respondent No. 2 has not turned up in spite of receipt of notice, it is decided to hear the matter in his absence and, accordingly, the matter is heard.

This Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has been filed by the applicant, Md. Mastakin Ali, for condoning the delay of 94 days in preferring the Criminal Revision Petition.

Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 08/2019 was pronounced by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj on 13.09.2019, but the engaged counsel of the applicant did not informed him about the judgment and only on 11.03.2020, he came to know about delivering of the judgment by the learned Court below and immediately he applied for the copy of the judgment and, thereafter, filed a criminal revision petition with this present application for condoning the delay of 94 days. It is further submitted that the delay is not deliberate but a bona fide Page No.# 3/3

one and, therefore, it is contended to condone the same.

Mr. B. Sarmah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has not raised any objection in condoning the delay of 94 days here in this case.

Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record.

It is a fact that the judgment was delivered by the learned Court below on 13.09.2019 and the petitioner came to know about the same on 11.03.2020 and, thereafter, he obtained the certified copy of the same and preferred the criminal revision petition and in the meantime, delay of 94 days occurred, which appears to be not a deliberate one but appears to be a bona fide one.

In view of above and in the interest of justice, this Interlocutory Application for condoning the delay of 94 days in preferring the connected criminal revision petition stands allowed and the delay of 94 days stands condoned.

The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of in terms above.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant