Md. Shah Alam v. The State of Assam and Anr

ORDER Date : 09-09-2024 [M. Choudhury, J] Heard Ms. B.R.A. Sultana, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant-appellant and Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1, State of Assam.

¶2The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of delay of 8 days which is stated to have occurred in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal under Section 374, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The accompanying criminal appeal is preferred to assail a Judgment and Order dated 07.06.2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge [POCSO], Morigaon ['the Special Court', for short] in POCSO Case no. 269 of 2023 which arose out of Jagiroad Police Station Case no. 220/2023. By the Judgment and Order dated

07.06.2024, the applicant-appellant has been convicted under Section 6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act, 2012 and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 [twenty] years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to Page No.# 3/4 undergo rigorous imprisonment for another three months.

¶3The applicant-appellant has explained in paragraph 5 and paragraph 6 [of the instant application] the reasons for the delay of 8 days.

¶4Mr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has submitted that since the applicant-appellant has been convicted for serious offences and also inter-alia sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 [twenty] years under Section 6, POCSO Act, interest of justice would be better sub-served if the accompanying criminal appeal is heard on merit.

¶5We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant interlocutory application, more particularly, in paragraph 5 and paragraph 6, thereof.

¶6Having gone through the same, we are of the view that the applicant-appellant has been able to explain the reason for delay with sufficient cause. Moreover, as the applicant-appellant because of his conviction under Section 6, POCSO Act has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 [twenty] years, the cause of justice, in our considered view, would be better sub-served if the accompanying appeal is heard on merits.

¶7Though a contention has been advanced on behalf of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that issuance of notice to the opposite party no. 2 appears necessary, we are of the considered view that the opposite party no. 2 will have participatory right in the hearing of the criminal appeal and we do not find it necessary to issue notice to the opposite party no. 2 at this stage as the period of delay in preferring the appeal is only 8 days. Page No.# 4/4

¶8Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay of 8 days stands allowed.

¶9The Registry to register the appeal and thereafter, list the appeal for admission.

JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010168672024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/846/2024 MD. SHAH ALAM S/O. MD. HANIF ALI, R/O. NO.2 BONGALBORI, P.S. JAGIROAD, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:ISMAIL ALI S/O. LT. ALI HUSSAIN R/O. VILL. KUIYADAL P.S. JAGIROAD DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PHN. 6001214554 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS B R A SULTANA, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : SHAH ALAM VERSUS Page No.# 2/4 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR G ------------ Advocate for : MS B R A SULTANA Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR G BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA