Gauhati High Court

Joy Nath Das @ Joynath Das vs Smti. Punya Saikia on 16 May, 2025

Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia

Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia

                                                                       Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010183782023




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

                                Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/726/2023

            JOY NATH DAS @ JOYNATH DAS
            S/O RAMEDHAR DAS
            O/O I AND E (FIRE SERVICE) DEPARTMENT, OIL INDIA LIMITED, P.O. AND
            P.S. DULIAJAN, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-786602



            VERSUS

            SMTI. PUNYA SAIKIA
            W/O SRI GAUTAM SAIKIA
            R/O NO. 15 JALONI GRANT,
            P.O. JALONI DIBRUDWAR
            P.S. DULIAJAN,
            DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM
            PIN-786602



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A R SHOME, MR A J GHOSH

Advocate for the Respondent : MR N N UPADHYAYA, MR. B B KAKATI




             Linked Case :

            JOY NATH DAS @ JOYNATH DAS



             VERSUS
                                                                                  Page No.# 2/3


              SMTI. PUNYA SAIKIA (A)



              ------------
              Advocate for : MR. A R SHOME
              Advocate for : appearing for SMTI. PUNYA SAIKIA (A)



                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                           ORDER

Date : 16.05.2025

Heard Mr. A R Shome, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. N N Upadhyaya appearing for the respondent.

2. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed praying for condonation of 193 days delay in preferring the connected Criminal Revision Petition.

3. The applicant was convicted by the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh. Thereafter, an appeal was filed in the Court of Sessions. The appeal was dismissed.

4. Now, the applicant submits that he did not have the knowledge about the dismissal of his appeal.

5. Mr. Upadhyaya has objected to the prayer for condonaton of delay on the ground that since the applicant had the knowledge that an appeal should be filed, he should have the knowledge when the last judgment was passed by the Appellate Court.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Shome submits that due to lack of communication between the lawyer and the applicant, the applicant did not have the knowledge about the dismissal of the appeal.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

8. This Court is of the opinion that the submissions made by Mr. Upadhyaya has force in Page No.# 3/3

it.

9. The applicant has been contesting the case before the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and now he says that he did not know about the dismissal of the appeal.

10. This Court is of the opinion that the reasons explained by the applicant for delay in preferring the connected Criminal Revision Petition are not satisfactory.

Therefore, the present interlocutory application is dismissed and disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant