Gauhati High Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Mr. R.U. Barlaskar And 3 Ors on 17 February, 2023
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010224322018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/788/2018
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
THROUGH ITS HEAD OF BRANCH, CBI/ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH,
OAKLAND, SHILLONG 793001, MEGHALAYA.
VERSUS
MR. R.U. BARLASKAR AND 3 ORS
S/O (L) ASAB UDDIN BARLASKAR, THE THEN AEE AND I/C, JIRIBAM
INVESTIGATION DIVISION, BRAHMAPUTRA BOARD (SINCE RETIRED),
PERMANENT ADD. VILL. SATURAKANDI, P.O. DHANARI VIA SONAIMUKH,
SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM 788001
2:MR. JAYANTA THAKURIA
S/O (L) BALRAM THAKURIA
THE THEN JE
JIRIBAM SUB-DIVISION
BRAHMAPUTRA BOARD
PRESENT ADD. MECHANICAL SUB-DIVISION
CWC
GUWAHATI
PERMANENT ADD. VILL. GOPINATH NAGAR
P.O. PALTAN BAZAR
DIST. KAMRUP
GUWAHATI 16
3:MR. ANUPAM NATH
S/O SHRI ANIL NATH
THE THEN JE. JIRIBAM SUB-DIVISION
BRAHMAPUTRA BOARD (SINCE RETIRED)
PRESENT ADD. NEID-I
CWC
SILCHAR
Page No.# 2/7
PERMANENT ADDRESS
P.O.AND VILL. PANIBORA
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM 788001
4:MR. K.M. BRAHMA
THE THEN JE
JIRIBAM SUB DIVISION
BRAHMAPUTRA BOARD
PRESENT ADD. H/NO 74
LACHIA PATH
PATARKUCHI
BASISTHA
GUWAHATI-29
PREMANENT ADDRESS VILL. CHAKMA
P.O. AND P.S. GOSHAIGOAN
DIST. KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM 78800
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C KEYAL
Advocate for the Respondent : MR N ISLAM
Linked Case :
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VERSUS
MR R.U. BARLASKAR and 3 ORS
2:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
CHAMARIA DEV. BLOCK
P.O. NAGARBERA
DIST KAMRUP R
ASSAM
PIN-781127
3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP
P.O. AMINGAON
DIST KAMRUP
ASSAM
Page No.# 3/7
PIN-781031
4:THE SECY
46 NO. RANGAPANI GAON PANCHAYAT
P.O.BADLABAZAR
P.S.BOKO
DIST KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-781127
5:MOIDUL ISLAM
S/O MD.AKTAR ALI
VILL. NO. 2
SOUTH RANGAPANI
P.O. BADLA BAZAR
P.S. BOKO
DIST KAMRUP R
ASSAM
PIN-781127
6:SHOWKAT ALI
S/O MD.ABDUL KUDDUS
VILL. NO.1
SOUTH RANGAPANI
P.O. BADLA BAZAR
P.S.BOKO
DIST KAMRUP R
ASSAM
PIN-781127
7:ABDUL AWAL
S/O LT MAKBUL HUSSAIN
VILL NO. 3
SOUTH RANGAPANI
P.O. BADLA BAZAR
P.S.BOKO
DIST KAMRUP R
ASSAM
PIN-781127
8:AKKAR ALI
S/O LT. GULAM MUSTAFA
VILL. NO.1 SOUTH RANGAPANI
P.O.BADLA BAZAR
P.S.BOKO
DIST KAMRUP R
ASSAM
PIN-781127
Page No.# 4/7
9:ASIYA KHATUN
W/O MD. ABDUL MALIK
VILL NO. 1 SOUTH RANGAPANI
P.O.BADLA BAZAR
P.S.BOKO
DIST KAMRUP R
ASSAM
PIN-781127
10:JAMELA KHATUN
W/O MD.ABDUL MAZID
VILL NO.2 SOUTH RANGAPANI
P.O. BADLA BAZAR
P.S.BOKO
DIST KAMRUP R
ASSAM
PIN-781127 SL. NO. 5 TO C/O . SECY. OF 46 NO. RANGAPANI GAON
PANCHAYAT
P.O. BADLA BAZAR
P.S.BOKO
DIST KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-781127
11:HASSAN BILLAL AHMED
S/O MD.USMAN GANI
VILL NO. 2 SOUTHRANGAPANI
P.O.BADLA BAZAR
P.S.BOKO
DIST KAMRUP R
ASSAM
PIN-781127
12:ADAM ALI
S/O LT. NASER ALI
VILL NO. 2
SOUTH RANGAPANI
P.O. BADLA BAZAR
P.S. BOKO
DIST KAMRUP R
ASSAM
PIN-781127
------------
Advocate for :
Advocate for : appearing for MR R.U. BARLASKAR and 3 ORS
Page No.# 5/7
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : 17.02.2023.
Heard Mr. M. Haloi, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI. Also
heard Mr. N. Islam, learned counsel for the respondents.
This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
for condonation of delay of 240 days in filing the regular appeal.
It has been submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI
that the learned Spl. Judge, Additional Court No. 2, CBI, Chandmari,
Guwahati passed the impugned judgment dated 31.12.2016 and
thereafter, it took some time to obtain the certified copy for preferring
the appeal for which the delay of 240 days was occurred. It is further
submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional. The delay
is also explained categorically in this petition as to how there was dealy
of 240 days in preferring the appeal.
In support of his case, he has placed reliance a case law reported
in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 357 State of Rajasthan vs Banwari Lal and Anr. In
this case, there is huge delay of 1880 days in preferring the appeal
against the impugned judgment and order.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that- "Applying the law laid down
by this Court on principles for sentencing, to the facts of the case of
hand, we are of the opinion that the approach of the High Court is most
cavalier. Therefore, the order of the High Court merits interference by
this Court. Merely on the technical ground of delay and merely on the
ground that after the impugned judgment and order, which is
Page No.# 6/7
unsustainable, the accused have resettled in their lives and their
conduct has since been satisfactory and they have not indulged in any
criminal activity, is no ground not to condone the delay and not to
consider the appeal on merits. Hence, the delay of 1880 days in
preferring the appeal is condoned."
In this context, the learned counsel for the respondents has
submitted that they have filed their affidavit-in-opposition and it is
stated that all the respondents were acquitted by the trial court after full
trial. Moreover, the delay was occurred due to negligence or time to
obtain such approval from the department. It is further stated due to
such negligence, the respondents cannot be put to harassment and
some of the respondents have already been retired. There is no
sufficient grounds shown by the applicant for which he has raised strong
objection if the delay of 240 days is condoned.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and also
considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion that the
grounds which have been shown by the applicant for delay in preferring
the regular appeal is satisfactory. Day to day delay is well explained in
this petition. Accordingly, the delay of 240 days is hereby stands
condoned.
The Registry is directed to register the connected appeal and list it
accordingly.
With the above observation, the I/A stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Page No.# 7/7
Comparing Assistant
