Allowed¶26

MD Amirat Ali v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Condonation of delay – Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963

Gauhati HC1 Jun 2025I.A.(Crl.)/568/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; Section 415(2) BNSS 2023 jail appeal; Gauhati High Court I.A.(Crl.)/568/2025; Criminal Appeal (Jail) No. 4835/2025; POCSO Case no. 124/2023 Morigaon Special Court; Section 376AB IPC rape of child; Section 6 POCSO Act life sentence; Section 42 POCSO Act; Rs. 20,000 fine; legal aid delay explanation; District Legal Services Authority Morigaon; High Court Legal Services Committee; notice to victim-respondent dispensed; Manish Choudhury; Mitali Thakuria; order dated 02.06.2025

What did the court decide?

Delay of eighty-six days in preferring the connected criminal appeal condoned; Registry directed to register the connected appeal and thereafter list it in the admission column. ¶26

MD Amirat Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of eighty-six days in preferring the connected criminal appeal condoned; Registry directed to register the connected appeal and thereafter list it in the admission column.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant-appellant has shown sufficient cause to justify condonation of the delay of eighty-six days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal against his conviction and sentence.

¶20

Court's answer

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

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Since the applicant-appellant has been convicted under Section 376AB, IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for natural life, the interest of justice will be better sub-served if the connected appeal is heard on merits expeditiously after condoning the delay.

¶25

Key takeaways

Issuance of notice to the opposite party-respondent no. 2 is dispensed with at this stage; service of notice upon her is to be ensured at the stage of hearing the connected criminal appeal, and she would be heard if she enters appearance after service of notice.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay — Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 — Gauhati High Court (Manish Choudhury & Mitali Thakuria, JJ.; order by Manish Choudhury, J.) allowed I.A.(Crl.)/568/2025 condoning an eighty-six-day delay in filing Criminal Appeal [Jail] No. 4835/2025 [Filing Number] under Section 415[2], BNSS, 2023, assailing the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.2024 of the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge [POCSO], Morigaon in POCSO Case no. 124/2023 convicting the applicant under Section 376AB, IPC and Section 6, POCSO Act, 2012 and sentencing him under Section 6, POCSO Act (per Section 42, POCSO Act) to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, default three months' rigorous imprisonment. Delay explained by the timeline of legal-aid referral: jail authorities approached DLSA, Morigaon on 03.03.2025; DLSA forwarded the matter to the High Court Legal Services Committee on 05.04.2025. Given the life sentence, the Court directed that the appeal be heard on merits expeditiously; notice to respondent no. 2 was dispensed with at this stage, service to be ensured at the appeal-hearing stage.

Page No. 1/3

GAHC010112312025

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/568/2025

¶6

MD AMIRAT ALI

¶7

S/O LATE SIDDIQUE ALI, R/O VILL. MIKIRGAON, P.S. MIKIRBHETA,P.O. MIKIRGAON, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN 782104

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY PP. ASSAM.

¶10

2:MRS. ALIZA BEGUM W/O MD. AMIRAT ALI R/O VILL. MIKIRGAON P.S. MIKIRBHETA P.O. MIKIRBHETA DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN 78210

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K SEN, MR A HUSSAIN

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶13

BEFORE

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 02.06.2025 [Manish Choudhury, J.]

¶17

Heard Mr. B.K. Sen, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant-appellant and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel & Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party-

¶18

Page No. 2/3

¶19

respondent no. 1, State of Assam.

¶20

The instant interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of delay of eighty-six days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal. The applicant as the appellant has preferred the accompanying criminal appeal, Criminal Appeal [Jail] no. 4835/2025 [Filing Number] under Section 415[2], Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 to assail a Judgment and Order dated 21.12.2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge–cum–Special Judge [POCSO], Morigaon [‘the Special Court’, for short] in POCSO Case no. 124/2023. By the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.2024, the learned Special Court has found the applicant-appellant guilty for the offences under Section 376AB, Indian Penal Code [IPC] and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act, 2012. In view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the applicant-appellant has been sentenced under Section 6, POCSO Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, which means imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another three months.

¶21

We have gone through the statements and averments made in this interlocutory application, more particularly, Paragraphs 3 and 4 thereof. The impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence was passed on 21.12.2024. It is found that steps were taken by the Superintendent of District Jail, Morigaon to approach the District Legal Services Authority, Morigaon on 03.03.2025 to extend legal assistance to the applicant-appellant and it was on 05.04.2025, the District Legal Services Authority, Morigaon forwarded the matter to the High Court Legal Services Committee for extending free legal aid services to the applicant-appellant.

¶22

Ms. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel & Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the opposite party-respondent no. 1, State of Assam has fairly submitted that since the applicantappellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, the interest of justice would be better sub-served if the connected appeal is heard on merits after effecting service of notice on the opposite party-respondent no. 2.

¶23

Page No. 3/3

¶24

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 eighty-six days showing sufficient cause.

¶25

We are also of the considered view that since the applicant-appellant has been convicted under Section 376AB, IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and he has sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for natural life, interest of justice will be better sub-served if the connected appeal is heard on merits expeditiously after condoning the period of delay of eighty-six days. The issuance of notice to the opposite party-respondent no. 2 is dispensed with at this stage as at the stage of hearing the connected criminal appeal, service of notice upon the opposite party-respondent no. 2 is to be ensured and the opposite party-respondent no. 2 would be heard, if the opposite party-respondent no. 2 enters appearance after service of notice.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

JUDGE JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

MD Amirat Ali v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Amirat Ali 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

Shri Bharat Bora Vs State of Assam

Shri Bharat Bora Vs State of Assam and Anr.

Gangu Tanti @ Kartik Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Chakra Sahu Vs the State of Assam

Babul Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Isajul Hussain Vs the State of Assam and Ors.