Disposed¶14

Nanda Karmakar v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC13 May 2025I.A.(Crl.)/125/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; 99 days delay; sufficient cause; jail appeal; Legal Aid Counsel; applicant in custody; deemed service of notice; registered post A/D; Gauhati High Court; I.A.(Crl.)/125/2023; Crl.A(J) 813/2023; Sessions Case No. 102(s-s) of 2019; Additional Sessions Judge Sivasagar; conviction under Section 454 IPC; conviction under Section 376 IPC; Mridul Kumar Kalita; 14.05.2025; appeal to be listed for admission.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 99 days in preferring the connected criminal appeal (Crl.A(J). Case No. 813/2023) condoned; Registry directed to register the connected criminal appeal and list it for admission after a week; Interlocutory Application disposed of. ¶14

Nanda Karmakar Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 99 days in preferring the connected Criminal Appeal (Crl.A(J). Case No. 813/2023) ought to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

The reasons cited in paragraph Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the condonation of delay application constitute sufficient cause; the delay of 99 days in preferring the connected criminal appeal is condoned and the Interlocutory Application is disposed of.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

As lot of time had elapsed since the notices were sent on 28.09.2023 without the A/D Card or the un-served notice being returned, the notice sent to respondent No. 2 through registered post is deemed duly served.

¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.), order dated 14.05.2025 in I.A.(Crl.)/125/2023, filed along with connected Crl.A(J). Case No. 813/2023: Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of a 99-day delay in preferring a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.07.2022 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sivasagar in Sessions Case No. 102(s-s) of 2019, whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 454 IPC (simple imprisonment 2 years, fine Rs. 2,000/-) and Section 376 IPC (rigorous imprisonment 10 years, fine Rs. 5,000/-). The applicant, being in custody serving out his sentence and unable to file the appeal himself, had withdrawn his jail appeal filed through a Legal Aid Counsel; the learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not oppose the prayer. Noting that notices sent to respondent No. 2 by registered post with A/D on 28.09.2023 had not been returned (Office Note dated 05.05.2025), the Court deemed the notice duly served. Holding the reasons cited in paragraph Nos. 2 to 6 of the application to be sufficient cause, the Court condoned the 99-day delay, directed the Registry to register the connected criminal appeal and list it for admission after a week, and disposed of the Interlocutory Application.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010017652023

2025:GAU-AS:6188

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/125/2023

¶6

NANDA KARMAKAR S/O LATE MANGAL KARMAKAR, R/O BARUAH BAGAN, P.S.- HALWATING, DIST.- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

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

¶9

2:ANI GANJU W/O LATE RAMAKANTA GANJU R/O BARUAH BAGAN

¶10

P.S.- HALWATING DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A GOGOI,

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶13

In Crl.A(J). Case No. 813/2023 WITH

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

Crl.A(J). Case No. 813/2023 (filing number) WITH I.A.(Crl.) Case No. 815/2023 (filing number)

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

14.05.2025

¶19

1. Heard Mr. A. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam.

¶20

2. On perusal of the Office Note dated 05.05.2025, it appears that neither the A/D Card nor the un-served notice in respect of the notices issued to the respondent No. 2 by registered post with A/D has been returned back.

¶21

3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had taken steps for issuance of notice on the respondent No. 2 by giving correct address of the respondent No. 2 in the notices.

¶22

4. It also appears that the notices were sent through registered post with A/D on 28.09.2023.

¶23

5. Lot of time has elapsed since then. Therefore, this Court deems the notice sent to the respondent No. 2 through registered post has been duly served.

¶24

6. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the applicant for condoning the delay of 99 days in preferring the connected Criminal Appeal, whereby, the petitioner, as applicant has impugned the judgment and order dated 16.07.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sivasagar in Sessions Case No. 102(s-s) of 2019.

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

7. By the impugned judgment and order dated 16.07.2022, the applicant was convicted under Section 454 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for 2(two) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-(Rupees Two Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to suffer further simple imprisonment for 2(two) months.

¶27

8. He was also convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10(ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo 6(six) months of rigorous imprisonment.

¶28

9. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was in custody after the delivery of the impugned judgment as he was serving out sentence imposed on him and he could not file the appeal on his own and therefore, he has to withdraw this jail appeal. The reasons for delay has been mentioned in paragraph Nos. 3,4,5 and 6 of the application for condoning the delay.

¶29

10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor concealed to the prayer for condoning the delay, considering the fact that the instant appeal is a jail appeal and filed through a Legal Aid Counsel.

¶30

11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides.

¶31

12. Considering the reasons cited for the delay in preferring the connected criminal appeal as described in paragraph Nos. 2,3,4, 5 and 6 of the condonation of delay application to the sufficient cause, this Court is hereby condoned the delay of 99 days in preferring the connected criminal appeal and accordingly disposed of the Interlocutory Application.

¶32

13. The Registry to register the connected criminal appeal and list the same

¶33

Page No.# 4/4

¶34

for admission after a week.

¶35

14. This Interlocutory Application is accordingly disposed of.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Nanda Karmakar v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanda Karmakar 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

Smti Santi Devi and 3 Ors. Vs Wallus Sahid and13 Ors.

Sri Jahurul Miya Vs the State of Assam

Smti Santi Devi and 3 Ors. Vs Wallus Sahid and13 Ors.

Nishank Prasad Saikia Vs the State of Assam

Pranabjyoti Deka Vs the State of Assam

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 29 Ors.