Marjina Begum vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 4472 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010224792022




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

                                 Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/693/2022

            MARJINA BEGUM
            W/O LATE JAKIR ALI,
            RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAMORTOL, PS RANGIA, DIST KAMRUP R, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
            REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM

            2:S.I MAZNUUDDIN AHMED
            T.S.I NALBARI TOWN BRANCH
             NALBARI
             DIST NALBARI
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS. B R A SULTANA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM




             Linked Case :

            MARJINA BEGUM



             VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. A
                                                                        Page No.# 2/3




          ------------
          Advocate for : MS. B R A SULTANA
          Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. A



                                BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
                                ORDER

15.11.2022

Heard Ms. B.R.A. Sultana, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent.

This application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred by Marjina Begum for condonation of delay of 287 days in filing the connected criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2019 and 04.12.2019, passed in NDPS case No. 05/2012 by the learned Special Judge, Nalbari under section 20[b][ii][B] of the NDPS Act.

Ms. Sultana submits that though the judgment and order was pronounced by the learned court below on 04.12.2019, yet appeal could not be preferred in time due to Covid 19 Pandemic and when the Covid 19 Pandemic is over and when she has received the vakalatnama from the applicant to file the present application along with connected appeal, then 287 days elapsed and that the delay is not intentional but circumstantial and therefore, Ms. Sultana contended to condone the same.

On the Mr. Gogoi submits that he has no objection in the event of condonation of 287 days by this court.

Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record. It Page No.# 3/3

is not in dispute that there was Covid 19 Pandemic for which the normal court was suspended for quite sometime and it also appears that the learned counsel for the applicant has received vakalatnama from the applicant lately. Further it appears that the delay is not intentional but circumstantial. Sufficient grounds having been shown for the delay of 287 days in filing the connected criminal appeal, this court is not inclined to condone the delay of 287 days in filing the connected criminal appeal.

Accordingly the delay of 287 days stands condone. In terms of above this IA stands disposed of.

The registry shall proceed to register the connected criminal appeal.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant