Gauhati High Court
The State Of Assam vs Parag Goswami And Anr on 16 March, 2023
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010163802022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/485/2022
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM.
VERSUS
PARAG GOSWAMI AND ANR.
S/O LATE RADHA NATH GOSWAMI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE B.G ROAD,
JYOTI NAGAR, PS AND DIST SIVASAGAR, ASSAM
2:SMTI GEETA KAKOTI @ GEETA KAKOTI BARUAH
W/O SHRI DIGANTA BARUAH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GANAKPATTY
WARD NO. 10
SEUJPUR
PS AND DIST SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Respondent : MR G CHOUDHURY (R-1,2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
ORDER
Date : 16-03-2023
(M. Zothankhuma, J)
Heard Ms. S Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant.
Also heard Mr. G Chouhdury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Page No.# 2/3
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there is a delay of 78
days in filing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.12.2021,
passed by the learned Special Judge, Sivasagar in Special (POCSO) Case No.
30/2020, acquitting the respondents from the charge under Sections 376(2)/323
IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the impugned
judgment and order has been passed on 28.12.2021, acquitting the respondents
during the pandemic period. She submits that due to the various restrictions
that were in place during the pandemic, the various Departments in the
Government had to deal with the problem of lethargy that had steeped into the
working atmosphere of the Government offices. She submits that the decision to
file an appeal against the impugned judgment was communicated to the Public
Prosecutor, Gauhati High Court only on 10.06.2022. Subsequent to 10.06.2022,
documents had to be collected and for the time taken in drafting the appeal and
filing the same, a total of 78 days delay has occurred. The learned Additional
Public Prosecutor submits that the delay is not intentional and in that view of
the matter, the delay of 78 days may be condoned, otherwise there would be
grave miscarriage of justice.
Mr. G Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
application should be dismissed as no proper explanation for the delay has been
given.
We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
It is seen that the impugned judgment and order had been made during
the pandemic period, when restrictions were in place all over India. Further, in
view of the orders passed by the Apex Court in Suo-Moto Writ Petition
Page No.# 3/3
(Civil) 3/2020, the period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 was not to be
counted for the purpose of limitation. In that view of the matter, the period of
limitation would have to be counted from 01.03.2022 and as the present appeal
has been filed on 16.08.2022, a delay of 78 days has occurred.
On considering the submissions made by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, we find it plausible that lethargy had crept into the working
atmosphere of not only the Government offices, but also in the general public.
On considering the reasons given by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in
the application for condonation of delay, we find that sufficient cause for the
delay has been made out, though the alleged atmosphere of lethargy should
have been dealt with sternly by the authorities.
The delay of 78 days is condoned. Registry is directed to register the
criminal appeal and list the same after a week.
This interlocutory application stands disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
