Allowed

Sri Manjit Sarkar @ Babu Sarkar v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC6 Feb 2020I.A.(Crl.)/74/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed the applicant's prayer for condonation of a two-day delay in filing an appeal against a life sentence conviction. The court found the explanation regarding the counsel's health issue genuine and dispensed with the need to issue notice to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of two days in filing the appeal; delay stands condoned; appeal listed for admission.

Sri Manjit Sarkar @ Babu Sarkar Vs the State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010024552020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Crl.) 74/2020

¶5

1:SRI MANJIT SARKAR @ BABU SARKAR S/O- LATE MANIK SARKAR, R/O- NO. 3 SIMALUGURI, P.S. BIHPURIA, DIST.LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY ASSTT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶8

2:MUNDINDRA CHABUKDHORA S/O- LATE PREMADHAR CHABUKDHORA R/O- NO. 3 SIMALUGURI P.S. BIHPURIA DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G PHUKAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 06-02-2020

¶13

Suman Shyam, J

¶14

Heard Mr. G. Phukan, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. M. Phukan,

¶15

learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the opposite party No. 1.

¶16

Page No.# 2/2

¶17

This I.A. has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 with a prayer for condonation of delay of 02 days in filing the appeal.

¶18

The applicant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo R/I for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-.

¶19

From a perusal of the statement made in the I.A. we find that the delay of 02 days in filing the appeal was on account of health problem faced by the learned counsel and the same had nothing to do with the applicant. The explanation for delay provided in the I.A. appears to be genuine and therefore, acceptable by this Court.

¶20

Although, ordinarily notice ought to be issued to the informant before passing an order in an applications for condonation of delay, yet, considering the fact that the applicant has a statutory right to prefer the appeal and having regard to the circumstances under which the delay of 02 days has occurred, we are of the view that issuance of notice would lead to unnecessary delay in taking up the appeal on merit. As such, service of notice upon the respondent No. 2 is dispensed with.

¶21

The prayer made in the I.A. is allowed.

¶22

Accordingly, the delay of 02 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

¶23

Registry to now list the appeal for admission.

¶24

I.A. stands disposed of.

¶25

JUDGE JUDGE GS

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Sri Manjit Sarkar @ Babu Sarkar v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjit Sarkar @ Babu Sarkar v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dwipen Bawri Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sri Lata Ram Swargiary Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Md. Abdul Malik Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Shri Dipankar Deka Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Gosai Basumatary Vs the State of Assam

Miloo Goala Vs the State of Assam