Allowed¶29

Sabin Das v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC10 Jun 2025I.A.(Crl.)/1069/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court; I.A.(Crl.)/1069/2024; Sabin Das versus The State of Assam and Anr. (Babul Patar); condonation of delay of four days; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; accompanying criminal appeal against conviction under Section 6 POCSO Act 2012; twenty years rigorous imprisonment; fine Rs. 10,000/-; POCSO Case no. 7/2021; Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge [POCSO], Morigaon; Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2024; sufficient cause; appeal to be heard on merits; Registry to register appeal and list in admission column; order dated 11-06-2025; Justices Manish Choudhury and Mitali Thakuria.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the delay of four days in preferring the connected criminal appeal; the Registry directed to register the connected appeal and thereafter list it in the admission column. ¶29

Sabin Das Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Condonation of the delay of four days in preferring the connected criminal appeal; the Registry directed to register the connected appeal and thereafter list it in the admission column.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant-appellant showed sufficient cause so that the delay of four days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2024 should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶23

Court's answer

The applicant-appellant has been able to explain the period of delay of four days, showing sufficient cause.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Since the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years, the interest of justice will be better sub-served if the connected appeal is heard on merits notwithstanding the technical consideration of delay.

¶28

Key takeaways

The instant application is allowed, condoning the delay of four days in preferring the connected appeal.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay - Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by Sabin Das to condone a four-day delay in preferring the criminal appeal against his conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentence of twenty years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (default: three months' rigorous imprisonment) imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge [POCSO], Morigaon in POCSO Case No. 7/2021 (Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2024); the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that, given the twenty-year sentence, interest of justice would be better served by hearing the appeal on merits; the Court held that the applicant had explained the four-day delay showing sufficient cause and that interest of justice required the connected appeal to be heard on merits notwithstanding the technical consideration of delay; application allowed and the Registry directed to register the connected appeal and list it in the admission column. Bench: Honourable Mr. Justice Manish Choudhury and Honourable Mrs. Justice Mitali Thakuria; order dated 11-06-2025.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010220082024

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1069/2024

¶6

SABIN DAS

¶7

S/O. UKUA DAS, R/O. OUZARIBORI, P/S. MORIGAON, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

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

¶10

2:BABUL PATAR S/O. LATE LAKHI PATAR R/O. MANIPUR P/S. MORIGAON DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782105

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N N B CHOUDHURY,

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶13

Linked Case :

¶14

SABIN DAS VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

-----------Advocate for : MR. N N B CHOUDHURY Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

¶17

BEFORE

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 11-06-2025 [M. Choudhury, J]

¶21

Heard Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party-respondent no. 1, State of Assam.

¶22

As per office note dated 03.12.2024, service of notice upon the respondent no. 2 has been effected by the Officer In-Charge, Morigaon Police Station.

¶23

The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of delay of four days, which have occurred in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal against a Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judgecum-Special Judge [POCSO], Morigaon in POCSO Case no. 7/2021. By the Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2024, the applicant-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act, 2012 and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

¶24

We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant application, more particularly, paragraph 7 thereof.

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

Mr. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has fairly submitted that since the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years, the interest of justice would be better sub-served if the accompanying criminal appeal is heard on merits by condoning the delay in preferring the accompanying appeal, which is hardly four days.

¶27

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 four days showing sufficient cause.

¶28

We are also of the considered view that since the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years, interest of justice will be better sub-served if the connected appeal is heard on merits to sub-serve the interest of justice, notwithstanding the technical consideration of delay.

¶29

For the afore-said reasons, the instant application is allowed condoning the delay of four days in preferring the connected appeal.

¶30

The Registry to register the connected appeal and thereafter, to list the same in the admission column.

¶31

JUDGE JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Sabin Das v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabin Das v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jakir Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Nurul Hoque @ Nural Hoque and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Rohimul Islam and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Hanufa Nasrin Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Topan Doley Vs the State of Assam

Sahabuddin Ahmed @ Jun Ahmed and Anr. Vs the State of Assam