Rajimul Hoque vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 470 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010188692022




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

                                Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/571/2022

             RAJIMUL HOQUE
             S/O AKBAR ALI,
             VILL.- ALOMGANJ PART- II (THURIAPAHAR),
             P.O.- ALAMGANJ,
             P.S.- KAZIGAON,
             DIST.- KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 783339.
             VERSUS
             THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
             REP. BY THE LEARNED P.P., ASSAM.
             2:HABIJAN BEWA
              S/O LATE KHAIBOR ALI
              VILL.- KHAMAR
              P.O.- BARKANDA
              P.S.- BOGRIBARI
              DIST.- KOKRAJHAR
             ASSAM
              PIN- 783348

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. M S ALAM

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
                   HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI

                                          ORDER

08.02.2023 (M. Zothankhuma, J.)

Heard Mr. M.S. Alam, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. B.

Page No.# 2/2

Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. H.R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent.

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condoning the delay of 129 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 04.03.2022 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Kokrajhar in Case No. Special 08/2017, by which the applicant has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years with a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default imprisonment of 1 (one) year.

The counsels for the respondents submit that they do not have any objection to the delay being condoned.

On considering the reasons given for the delay in the application and keeping in view the submissions made by the counsels for the respondents, we find that sufficient cause for the delay has been made out. Accordingly the 129 days delay is condoned.

I.A. is accordingly disposed of.

Registry to register the appeal and list the same accordingly.

                        JUDGE                      JUDGE




Comparing Assistant