Allowed¶21

Sadek Ali v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC8 Jun 2025I.A.(Crl.)/601/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; three days delay; criminal appeal under Section 415(2) BNSS 2023; conviction under Section 6 POCSO Act 2012; rigorous imprisonment for life / remainder of natural life; Special Judge (POCSO) Chirang Kajalgaon; Special (POCSO) Case no. 46/2023; Judgment and Order dated 29.03.2025; applicant Sadek Ali; opposite party no. 2 Ranesh Changma informant/victim to be heard after notice; Gauhati High Court 2025; Manish Choudhury J; Mitali Thakuria J; application allowed; appeal to be registered and listed in admission column.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the delay of three days in preferring the connected criminal appeal; Registry directed to register the connected appeal and thereafter list it in the admission column. ¶21

Sadek Ali 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 three days in preferring the connected criminal appeal; Registry directed to register the connected appeal and thereafter list it in the admission column.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of three days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal (under Section 415(2), BNSS 2023, against the conviction under Section 6, POCSO Act 2012) should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶18

Court's answer

Since the period of three days' delay is inconsequential in view of the applicant's sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, the interest of justice will be better sub-served if the connected appeal is heard on merits after condoning the delay of three days.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The instant interlocutory application is allowed, condoning the delay of three days in preferring the connected appeal.

¶21

Key takeaways

At the stage of hearing the connected criminal appeal, the opposite party no. 2 would be heard if he enters appearance after due service of notice.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court, I.A.(Crl.)/601/2025, decided 09.06.2025 (Manish Choudhury and Mitali Thakuria, JJ.; order by M. Choudhury, J). Interlocutory application by Sadek Ali under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of a three-day delay in preferring a criminal appeal under Section 415(2), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the Judgment and Order dated 29.03.2025 of the learned Special Judge [POCSO], Chirang, Kajalgaon in Special [POCSO] Case no. 46/2023, whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, i.e., imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. Holding: the three-day delay being inconsequential in view of the life sentence, the interest of justice required the connected appeal to be heard on merits; the delay was condoned and the application allowed; the Registry was directed to register the appeal and list it in the admission column; opposite party no. 2 (Ranesh Changma, informant/victim) to be heard at the appeal stage if he enters appearance after due service of notice.

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010119932025

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/601/2025

¶5

SADEK ALI

¶6

S/O. SAHID ALI, R/O. VILL.- BASUGAON GOGALAPARA WARD NO. 4, P/S. AND P/O. BASUGAON, DIST. CHIRANG, PIN-783372, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

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

¶9

2:RANESH CHANGMA S/O. LT. KAN MARAK VILL.- GILAGURI P/O. BONGAIGAON P/S. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-783383

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K HANNAN,

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 09.06.2025

¶15

[M. Choudhury, J]

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party no. 1, State of Assam is present.

¶18

The instant interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of delay of three days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal. The accompanying criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 415[2], Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against a Judgment and Order dated 29.03.2025 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge [POCSO], Chirang, Kajalgaon [‘the Special Court’, for short] in Special [POCSO] Case no. 46/2023. By the Judgment and Order dated 29.03.2025, the learned Special Court has convicted the applicant for the offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act, 2012. The applicant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life which mean imprisonment for the reminder of natural life.

¶19

Mr. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that since the applicant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the reminder of natural life of the applicant, , the interest of justice would be better sub-served if the connected appeal is heard on merits, after service of notice upon the informant/victim.

¶20

Though the learned counsel for the applicant is found absent on call, we are of the considered view since the period of three days delay is inconsequential qua the sentence of imprisonment for the reminder of the natural life of the applicant, interest of justice will be better sub-served if the connected appeal is heard on merits after condoning the period of delay of three days. At the stage of hearing the connected criminal appeal, the opposite party no. 2 would be heard, if the opposite party-respondent no. 2 enters appearance after due service of notice.

¶21

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

¶22

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

Page No.# 3/3

admission column.

JUDGE JUDGE

Comparing Assistant

Sadek Ali v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadek 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

Rohit Gatowar Vs the State of Assam and Anr. .

Perish Kutum @ Gavaskar Vs the State of Assam

Bichitra Ruhi Das Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Rintu Pator Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sanjib Kumar Das Vs the State of Assam

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