Shri Nantu Dey vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 3844 Gua

                                                                      Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010131082019




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

                                Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/529/2019


            SHRI NANTU DEY
            S/O- BRJALAL DEY, R/O- WATER WORKS COLONY, PANDU, P.O. AND P.S.
            JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI-12, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
            REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM, GUWAHATI HIGH COURT, GHY-1.

            2:SMTI. REENA DEY
            W/O- SHRI DEY
             R/O- PANDU COLLEGE GATE
             P.O. AND P.S. JALUKBARI
             GUWAHATI-12
             DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
            ASSAM.

            3:SRI KRISHNA DEY @ DEB
             S/O- JAGESH CH DEY @ DEB
             R/O- PANDU COLLEGE GATE
             P.O. AND P.S. JALUKBARI
             GHY-12



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. U C RABHA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
                                                                                 Page No.# 2/3

                                   BEFORE
                      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

                                         ORDER

20.09.2023

Heard Mr. L.C. Dey, learned counsel for the applicant and also heard Ms. D. Chaudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent No.1.

2. This interlocutory application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 183 days in filing the connected appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal in C.R. Case No.1245/2014 under Section 494/497 IPC passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup(M), Guwahati.

3. Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was suffering from some ailments and in support of the said contention, Mr. Dey has referred to Annexure-7 and Annexure-8 of this application, which are the certificates issued by Dr. S.N. Das. Mr. Dey further submits that the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial, and therefore, Mr. Dey contended to condone the delay of 183 days in filing appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal of the learned Court below.

4. On the other hand, Ms. Chaudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that she has no objection in the event of condoning the aforesaid period of delay in filing appeal.

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

6. It appears that the applicant was suffering from 'lumbago sciatica syndrome' with high fever and was under treatment of Dr. S.N. Das from 02.11.2018 to 15.11.2018 and thereafter, from 29.04.2019 to 02.06.2019. Since the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has not objected and also since the delay has been explained sufficiently by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 183 Page No.# 3/3

days in filing appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal.

7. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of.

8. Accordingly, Registry to register the appeal and list the same before the Court.

Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE

Comparing Assistant