Gangu Tanti @ Kartik v. The State of Assam and Anr

ORDER Date : 13.09.2024 [Manish Choudhury, J.]

Heard Mr. R. Islam, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant-appellant and Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party no. 1, State of Assam.

Page No. 2/3

¶2The instant interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of the period of delay which is stated to have occurred in filing the accompanying criminal appeal. The applicant as the appellant, has preferred the accompanying appeal to assail a Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2024 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Sessions Case no. 4/2023. By the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2024, the applicant-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code [IPC] and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

¶3On perusal of the application, we find that the period of delay which is stated to have been occurred in filing of the accompanying criminal appeal is 133 days beyond the statutory period of limitation. It transpires from Annexure-B that the same is a Communication from the Superintendent, District Jail, Golaghat to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Golaghat. By the said Communication dated 01.03.2024, the Secretary, District Legal Authority, Golaghat was requested to prefer an appeal before the appellate court on behalf of the applicant-appellant. It transpires from the Communication dated 24.07.2024, appended to the instant interlocutory application as Annexure-C and addressed to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Gauhati High Court [GHC] by the Secretary, Legal Services Authority, Golaghat, that the necessary case papers along with the certified copies of the documents were forwarded only on 24.07.2024.

¶4During the period from 17.02.2024 till date, the applicant-appellant is in jail serving his sentence.

¶5Ms. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that from Annexure-B, it transpires that the delay is not attributed prima facie to the applicant-appellant. Ms. Begum has fairly submitted that considering the fact that the applicant-appellant has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, the interest of justice will be better sub-served if the accompanying criminal appeal is heard on merits by condoning the delay. With such submission, Ms. Begum has submitted that the State has no Page No. 3/3 objection if the period of delay occasioned herein is condoned.

¶6Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is engrafted in order to enable the court to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of matters including the criminal appeals, on merit. The expression 'sufficient cause' is interpreted as an elastic concept to enable the court to apply the law in a meaningful manner with the ultimate objective to sub-serve the ends of justice. When the substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. From the undertaking of the applicant-appellant, it cannot be presumed that the delay has been occasioned deliberately and it is also clear at a convict like the applicant-appellant, does not stand to gain any benefit by resorting to delay. If the refusal to condone the delay itself results in miscarriage of justice, it could also be a ground to condone the delay.

¶7In view of the above fact situation obtaining in the case, we find that the accompanying criminal appeal deserves consideration of merits to sub-serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the instant application seeking condonation of delay of 133 days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal stands allowed.

¶8The Office to register the accompanying criminal appeal and thereafter, list the same for admission.

JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page No. 1/3 GAHC010178372024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/863/2024 GANGU TANTI @ KARTIK S/O. LT. ANAND TANTI, R/O. VIIL. DIFFOLU T.E MURAL LINE, P/O. AND P.S BOKAKHAT, DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785612. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, SSAM 2:SHRI. DINESH TANTI @ BITU S/O. GANGU TANTI @ KARTIK R/O. VILL. DIFFOLU T.E. MURAL LINE P/O. AND P/S. BOKAKHAT DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-78561 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R ISLAM, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA