Gauhati High Court
Kishan Lal Toshniwal vs Deepmoni Saikia And Anr on 7 August, 2024
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010196142023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/814/2023
KISHAN LAL TOSHNIWAL
S/O LATE MANGILAL TOSHNIWAL, FLAT NO. 501, ROYAL GRAND, STREET
NO. 3, SURVEY OF INDIA, MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD, PIN- 500081.
VERSUS
DEEPMONI SAIKIA AND ANR.
S/O LATE NABA SAIKIA,
VILL.- HUJGAON, P.S.- NAGAON, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782002.
2:STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D K KOTHARI, MR Y KOTHARI,MR P PRAWAR
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS K SARMA,MS K BHATTACHARYYA,MR. P
BORA
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
Date : 07.08.2024
[Manish Choudhury, J]
Heard Mr. Y. Kothari, learned counsel for the applicant; Ms. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 1; and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel & Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Ms. M. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, State of Assam.
2. The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking
Page No.# 2/2
condonation of delay of 40 days, which is stated to have occurred in filing the accompanying criminal
appeal under the proviso to Section 372, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. The applicant as the appellant has preferred the accompanying appeal against a Judgment dated
17.05.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case no. 258/2014 whereby
the learned Sessions Court acquitted the opposite party no. 1 who faced the trial therein, for the charges
framed under Section 302, Indian Penal Code [IPC] read with Section 120B, IPC.
4. We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant interlocutory
application, more particularly, in paragraph 3 thereof, wherein the applicant has explained the reasons
for which the appeal could not be preferred within the statutory period of limitation.
5. Having gone through the same, we are of the considered view that the applicant has been able to
show reasons showing sufficient cause as to why the appeal have to be preferred 40 days beyond the
period of limitation.
6. Ms. Sarma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 and Ms. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel
& Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party no. 2, State of Assam have submitted, in unison,
they have no objection if the period of delay is condoned and the accompanying appeal is heard on
merits.
7. As the applicant has shown sufficient cause for the period of delay and the opposite parties have
no objection to condone the delay, the instant interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay of
40 days in preferring the accompanying appeal is allowed.
8. The Registry to register the accompanying appeal and thereafter, list the same for admission.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
