Gauhati High Court
Khadem Ali vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 28 May, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010092212025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/539/2025
KHADEM ALI
S/O. MONOWAR HUSSAIN, VILL.- BORO BHADEYAGURI, P/O.
BHADEYAGURI, P/S. KOKRAJHAR, DIST. KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM, PIN-783360.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP BY THE PP ASSAM
2:ALI HUSSAIN
S/O. LT. JAHER ALI
VILL. BORO BHADEYAGURI
P/O. BHADEYAGURI
P/S. KOKRAJHAR
DIST. KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN-783360
Advocate for the Petitioner : T UDDIN, MR M RAHMAN,MR. S AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Linked Case : ST.Rev./0/0
KHADEM ALI
KOKRAJHAR
Page No.# 2/3
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP BY THE PP ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : TAHEZ UDDIN
Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
ORDER
Date : 28.05.2025
[M. Choudhury, J]
Heard Mr. T. Uddin, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant-appellant and Ms. A.
Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party-respondent no. 1, State of
Assam.
2. The instant interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is
preferred seeking condonation of delay of 163 days in preferring the connected criminal
appeal from jail. The connected criminal appeal has been preferred against a Judgment and
Order 06.09.2024 passed by the Court of Special Judge [POCSO], Kokrajhar ['the trial court',
for short] in Special Case no. 57/2019. By the Judgment and Order 06.09.2024, the learned
trial court has convicted the applicant-appellant under Section 4 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act, 2012 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 [fifteen]
years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for another three months.
3. We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant
interlocutory application.
4. Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that since the
Page No.# 3/3
applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 [fifteen]
years, the interest of justice would be better sub-served if the connected appeal is heard on
merits after effecting service of notice on the opposite party-respondent no. 2.
5. On having gone through the statements and averments made in this application, we
are of the considered view that the applicant-appellant has been able to explain the period of
delay of 163 days showing sufficient cause.
6. We are also of the considered view that since the applicant-appellant has been
convicted both under Section 6, POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for 15 [fifteen] years, interest of justice will be better sub-served if the connected appeal is
heard on merits expeditiously after condoning the period of delay of 163 days. The issuance
of notice to the opposite party-respondent no. 2 is dispensed with at this stage as at the
stage of hearing the connected criminal appeal, service of notice upon the opposite party-
respondent no. 2 is to be ensured and the opposite party-respondent no. 2 would be heard, if
the opposite party-respondent no. 2 enters appearance after service of notice.
7. For the afore-said reasons, the instant application is allowed condoning the delay of
163 days in preferring the connected appeal.
8. The Registry to register the connected appeal and thereafter, list the same in the
admission column.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
