Makhan Malakar vs The State Of Assam
2023 Latest Caselaw 4638 Gua

                                                                             Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010244292023




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

                                Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1093/2023

            MAKHAN MALAKAR
            S/O LATE RAKESH MALAKAR
            VILL- HARISHNAGAR, PART-I,
            P.S. KATLICHERRA,
            DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            TO BE REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A M BARBHUIYA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM




                                   BEFORE
                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

                                           ORDER

Date : 16-11-2023

Heard Mr. A M Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner and Ms. N Das, learned Addl. PP, Assam.

This application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred by the petitioner, namely, Makhan Malakar, for condoning Page No.# 2/3

delay of 78 days in filing the connected criminal revision petition.

Mr. Barbhuiya learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood convicted by the learned CJM, Hailakandi in GR Case No.1675/2014, under section 324 IPC and sentenced to suffer SI for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation. And against the said judgment and order, dated 09.05.2019, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, being Crl.A No.28/2019, before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi and thereafter the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi after hearing both the parties, was pleased to dismiss the appeal.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred a revision petition and in the process of filing the petition some delay occurred as he could not contact his lawyer in time and the same was not intentional, but circumstantial, and therefore, it is contended to condone the delay of 78 days in filing the revision petition.

On the other Ms. N Das, learned Addl. PP submits that she has no objection in the event of condoning the delay of 78 days.

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

It appears that the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 28.04.2023. Further it appears that on that day the petitioner could not remain present in the court personally as he was suffering from ailment and he was allowed to remain on previous bail by the learned Sessions Judge during the pendency of the appeal and that after recovery when he contacted his Page No.# 3/3

counsel delay of 78 days, in filing the revision petition occurred and the same appears to be not intentional and rather circumstantial and the reason for having been sufficiently explained, this Court is inclined to condone the same.

Accordingly the delay of 78 days in filing the connected revision petition stands condoned.

The I.A accordingly stands disposed of.

Registry shall register and number the connected criminal revision petition, if not found defective

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant