Gauhati High Court
The State (National Investigation ... vs Kumud Saloi @ Joy @ Suresh @ Master And Anr on 28 May, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010249792023
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1083/2023
THE STATE (NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY)
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED
BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NATIONAL INVESTIGATION
AGENCY (NIA) BRANCH OFFICE, GUWAHATI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
KUMUD SALOI @ JOY @ SURESH @ MASTER AND ANR.
S/O JIBON SALOI,
VILL.- SULIKATA, P.O.- SEMINA, P.S.- PALASHBARI, DIST.- KAMRUP (R),
ASSAM (A-4).
2:HRIDAY KALITA
S/O SH. DHARMESHWAR KALITA
VILL.- AMTOLA SATRA
P.O.- KUKURMARA
P.S.- CHHAYAGAON
DIST.- KAMRUP (R)
ASSAM (A-5)
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R K D CHOUDHURY, SC, NIA
Advocate for the Respondent : MS. G DEKA (r-2), MR B PRASAD(R-1),MS. G DEKA(R-1),MR K
K KALITA (R-1),MR B PRASAD (r-2),MR K K KALITA (r-2)
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
ORDER
Date :28.05.2025
[M. Choudhury, J]
Heard Mr. R.K. Dev Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
for the applicant, National Investigation Agency [NIA] and Mr. B. Prasad, learned
counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 & 2.
2. The instant interlocutory application under the first proviso to sub-section
[5] of Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 read with
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of delay
of 53 days in filing the accompanying criminal appeal under Section 21 of the
NIA Act.
3. The applicant, NIA as the appellant has preferred the accompanying
criminal appeal against an Order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the learned
Special Judge, NIA, Guwahati ['the Special Court'] in Special NIA Case no.
02/2022 in connection with RC-01/2022/NIA-GUW. In Special NIA Case no.
02/2022, the opposite parties herein were arraigned as accused persons to
stand the trial. The opposite party no. 1, namely, Kumud Saloi @ Joy @ Suresh
@ Master was A-4 and the opposite party no. 2, namely, Hriday Kalita was A-5.
4. During the course of the trial, the learned Special Court framed charges
under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code [IPC] and Section 38 of the Unlawful
Activities [Prevention] Act ['the UA[P] Act', for short] on 26.06.2023 on both the
opposite parties, A-4 & A-5. After framing charges, charges were read over and
explained to both the opposite parties, that is, A-4 & A-5 on 09.07.2023. On
Page No.# 3/4
09.07.2023, both the opposite parties as accused filed petitions pleading guilty
to the above charges.
5. The learned Special Court has accordingly convicted them on 26.07.2023
imposing sentence of simple imprisonment for six months each and to pay fine
of Rs. 500/- each, with default stipulation, for the offence under Section 120B,
IPC. In respect of the charge under Section 38, UA[P] Act, the opposite party
no. 1, A-4 has been imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for the period
already undergone and the opposite party no. 2, A-5 has been similarly imposed
a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone. In the
Order dated 26.07.2023, the Special Court has recorded that the accused, A-4
was in incarceration for about one year two months and twenty four days and
the accused, A-5 was in incarceration for about one year three months and one
day.
6. Being dissatisfied with the Order dated 26.07.2023, the appellant has
preferred the accompanying criminal appeal. In the process, delay of 53 days
has occurred.
7. As per sub-section [5] of Section 21 of the NIA Act, an appeal shall be
preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment, sentence
or order appealed. The first proviso to sub-section [5] of Section 21 has
provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the
said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause
for not preferring the appeal within the period of thirty days.
8. We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant
interlocutory application, more particularly, paragraph 11 thereof. We have also
Page No.# 4/4
gone through the contents of the objection filed on behalf of the opposite
parties, besides hearing the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Having gone through the statements and averments made in the
application, more particularly, paragraph 11 thereof, we are of the considered
view that the applicant has been able to explain the period of delay of 53 days
showing sufficient cause in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal.
10. In the above view of the matter, the instant application seeking
condonation of delay of 53 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal
is allowed.
11. The Registry to register the connected appeal and thereafter, to list the
same accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
