Allowed

Md. Shah Alam v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC8 Sept 2024I.A.(Crl.)/846/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed an interlocutory application seeking condonation of 8 days delay in preferring a criminal appeal under Section 374 CrPC. The court accepted the applicant's explanation for the delay and listed the appeal for merits, deeming justice best served by hearing the appeal given the severe conviction under the POCSO Act.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of 8 days delay in preferring the appeal is allowed; Registry directed to register and list appeal for admission.

Md. Shah Alam Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010168672024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/846/2024

¶5

MD. SHAH ALAM

¶6

S/O. MD. HANIF ALI, R/O. NO.2 BONGALBORI, P.S. JAGIROAD, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶9

2:ISMAIL ALI S/O. LT. ALI HUSSAIN R/O. VILL. KUIYADAL P.S. JAGIROAD DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PHN. 6001214554

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS B R A SULTANA,

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

Linked Case :

SHAH ALAM

VERSUS

Page No.# 2/4

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR G

¶17

-----------Advocate for : MS B R A SULTANA Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR G

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 09-09-2024 [M. Choudhury, J]

¶21

Heard Ms. B.R.A. Sultana, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicantappellant and Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1, State of Assam.

¶22

The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of delay of 8 days which is stated to have occurred in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal under Section 374, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The accompanying criminal appeal is preferred to assail a Judgment and Order dated 07.06.2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge [POCSO], Morigaon [‘the Special Court’, for short] in POCSO Case no. 269 of 2023 which arose out of Jagiroad Police Station Case no. 220/2023. By the Judgment and Order dated 07.06.2024, the applicant-appellant has been convicted under Section 6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act, 2012 and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 [twenty] years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

undergo rigorous imprisonment for another three months.

¶25

The applicant-appellant has explained in paragraph 5 and paragraph 6 [of the instant application] the reasons for the delay of 8 days.

¶26

Mr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that since the applicant-appellant has been convicted for serious offences and also inter-alia sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 [twenty] years under Section 6, POCSO Act, interest of justice would be better sub-served if the accompanying criminal appeal is heard on merit.

¶27

We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant interlocutory application, more particularly, in paragraph 5 and paragraph 6, thereof.

¶28

Having gone through the same, we are of the view that the applicantappellant has been able to explain the reason for delay with sufficient cause. Moreover, as the applicant-appellant because of his conviction under Section 6, POCSO Act has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 [twenty] years, the cause of justice, in our considered view, would be better sub-served if the accompanying appeal is heard on merits.

¶29

Though a contention has been advanced on behalf of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that issuance of notice to the opposite party no. 2 appears necessary, we are of the considered view that the opposite party no. 2 will have participatory right in the hearing of the criminal appeal and we do not find it necessary to issue notice to the opposite party no. 2 at this stage as the period of delay in preferring the appeal is only 8 days.

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay of 8 days stands allowed.

¶32

The Registry to register the appeal and thereafter, list the appeal for admission.

¶33

JUDGE JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Md. Shah Alam v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Shah Alam 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

Daineisang Pudaite Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Rajimul Hoque Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Badal Chinku @ Badal Mura Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Rajesh Patnayak Vs the State of Assam

Gulzar Hussain Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Siva Karmakar Vs the State of Assam