Sri Pradip Sarkar Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010219062024

¶3

undefined

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/989/2024

¶6

SRI PRADIP SARKAR PROPRIETOR OF SHREE PADMANATH CO. AND JEWELLERS S/O LATE KHITISH CHANDRA SARKAR R/O LACHIT BAZAR, WARD NO. 5, A.T. ROAD, JORHAT, P.O. AND P.S. JORHAT, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM PIN NO. 785001

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

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

¶9

2:RAM AWATAR LAHOTY PROPRIETOR OF KRISHNA JEWELLERS OLD BALIBAT JORHAT ASSAM S/O LATE BHANWARLAL LAHOTY R/O OLD BALIBAT JORHAT P.O. AND P.S. JORHAT DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN NO. 78500

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P BAJAJ, MR. K D CHETRI

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. R DEV (R-2)

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER

¶14

04.02.2025

¶15

Heard Mr. K.D. Chetri, learned counsel for the applicant; Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, opposite party No. 1; and Mr. R. Deb, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

¶16

2. This application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is preferred by the applicant for condoning the delay of 16 days in preferring the connected revision petition against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 05.01.2023, passed by the learned C.J.M., Jorhat.

¶17

3. It is to be noted here that vide Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 05.01.2023, the learned C.J.M., Jorhat has convicted the applicant and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months with a direction to pay a sum of Rs. 8,95,760/- as compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. with default stipulation.

¶18

4. Mr. Chetri, learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to ill health of the applicant as well as financial and economic hardship of his family, he could not file the revision petition in time. Mr. Chetri further submits that the delay is not intentional rather it is circumstantial and the same is sufficiently explained in this petition and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition.

¶19

5. On the other hand, Mr. Deb, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submits that in view of the explanation so forthcoming from the applicant, he has no objection in the event of condoning the delay.

¶20

Page No.# 3/3

¶21

6. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the averments made in the application, especially in paragraph Nos. 5 & 6 and it appears that due to ill health of the applicant as well as financial and economic hardship of his family, he could not file the revision petition in time.

¶22

7. But, perusal of the record indicates that no medical report has been enclosed in support of the contention that the applicant could not file the revision petition in time due to ill health.

¶23

8. However, considering the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and also taking note of the facts and circumstances on the record, this court is inclined to allow this application and accordingly, the delay of 16 days in preferring the connected revision petition, stands condoned.

¶24

9. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of.

¶25

10. Now, the Registry shall register the connected revision petition and list the same before the court as early as practicable.

¶26

11. The learned counsel for the applicant is directed to furnish the relevant medical documents before this court on the next date.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Sri Pradip Sarkar v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Pradip Sarkar 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

Premjit Das Vs the Gauhati University and 3 Ors.

Dr Diganta Baruah Vs the State of Assam

Abir Dutta Vs State of Assam and Anr.

Riju Kanta Pegu Vs the State of Assam

Ahmed Ali Vs the State of Assam

M/S Goels Coir Foam (India) Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.