Page No. 1/3 GAHC010134702025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/678/2025 NAWAZ KHAN S/O. MD. ABDUL JOYNAL, R/O. KWAKTA, WARD NO. 7, P/O. AND P/S. MOIRANG, DIST. BISHNUPUR, AMNIPUR, PIN-795133. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, MS. B LASKAR,MS. H G DAS,MS. P KHATUN,A MISHRA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 24.06.2025 [Manish Choudhury, J.] Heard Mr. I. Hoque, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party-respondent no. 1, State of Assam. 2. The instant interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of delay of eighteen days, which have occurred in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal. The applicant as the appellant has preferred the Page No. 2/3 accompanying criminal appeal, Criminal Appeal no. 5705/2025 [Filing Number] under Section 415[2], Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 against a Judgment dated 25.03.2025 and an Order on Sentence dated 02.04.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge [FTC], Karbi Anglong, Diphu in NDPS Case no. 10/2023. By the Judgment and the Order on Sentence, the applicant-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 21[c], Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances [NDPS] Act, 1985 and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another six months. 3. We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant application, more particularly, Paragraph 6 thereof. 4. 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 make out a prima facie case showing sufficient cause for condonation of delay of eighteen days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal. 5. We are also of the considered view that since the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years, interest of justice will be better sub-served if the connected appeal is heard on merits after condoning the period of delay. 6. Mr. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has fairly submitted that since the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years, the State has no objection if the accompanying criminal appeal is heard on merits by condoning the delay in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal. 7. The instant application is allowed condoning the delay eighteen days in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal. Page No. 3/3 8. The Registry to register the accompanying appeal and thereafter, to list the same in the admission column. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant