Gauhati High Court
Sri Pradip Sarkar vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 4 February, 2025
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010219062024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/989/2024
SRI PRADIP SARKAR
PROPRIETOR OF SHREE PADMANATH CO. AND JEWELLERS
S/O LATE KHITISH CHANDRA SARKAR
R/O LACHIT BAZAR, WARD NO. 5, A.T. ROAD, JORHAT,
P.O. AND P.S. JORHAT,
DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM
PIN NO. 785001
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:RAM AWATAR LAHOTY
PROPRIETOR OF KRISHNA JEWELLERS
OLD BALIBAT
JORHAT
ASSAM
S/O LATE BHANWARLAL LAHOTY
R/O OLD BALIBAT
JORHAT
P.O. AND P.S. JORHAT
DIST. JORHAT
ASSAM
PIN NO. 78500
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P BAJAJ, MR. K D CHETRI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. R DEV (R-2)
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
04.02.2025
Heard Mr. K.D. Chetri, learned counsel for the applicant; Mr. K.K.
Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, opposite party No. 1;
and Mr. R. Deb, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
2. This application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is preferred by
the applicant for condoning the delay of 16 days in preferring the connected
revision petition against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated
05.01.2023, passed by the learned C.J.M., Jorhat.
3. It is to be noted here that vide Judgment and Order of conviction and
sentence dated 05.01.2023, the learned C.J.M., Jorhat has convicted the applicant
and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months with a direction
to pay a sum of Rs. 8,95,760/- as compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C.
with default stipulation.
4. Mr. Chetri, learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to ill
health of the applicant as well as financial and economic hardship of his family, he
could not file the revision petition in time. Mr. Chetri further submits that the delay
is not intentional rather it is circumstantial and the same is sufficiently explained in
this petition and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Deb, learned counsel for the opposite party No.
2 submits that in view of the explanation so forthcoming from the applicant, he has
no objection in the event of condoning the delay.
Page No.# 3/3
6. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I
have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record
and also perused the averments made in the application, especially in paragraph
Nos. 5 & 6 and it appears that due to ill health of the applicant as well as financial
and economic hardship of his family, he could not file the revision petition in time.
7. But, perusal of the record indicates that no medical report has been
enclosed in support of the contention that the applicant could not file the revision
petition in time due to ill health.
8. However, considering the submission of learned counsel for both the
parties and also taking note of the facts and circumstances on the record, this
court is inclined to allow this application and accordingly, the delay of 16 days in
preferring the connected revision petition, stands condoned.
9. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of.
10. Now, the Registry shall register the connected revision petition and list
the same before the court as early as practicable.
11. The learned counsel for the applicant is directed to furnish the relevant
medical documents before this court on the next date.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
