Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010139332025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/732/2025 NANI GOPAL GOSWAMI SON OF SRI KRISHNA GOPAL GOSWAMI, R/O HOUSE NO. 11, BAIKUNTHAPUR PATH, BYE LANE NO. 3, P.S. NOONMATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:M/S ARUNA TEXTILES REPRESENTED BY- SRI BINOD AGARWAL S/O LATE SHIVLAL AGARWAL SRCB ROAD FANCY BAZAR P.S. PANBAZAR DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S DAS, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 22.09.2025 Page No.# 2/3 1. Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. 2. By this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant has prayed for condoning the delay of 295 days in preferring the connected Criminal Appeal against the Judgment and Order, dated 26.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup (M) in Criminal Appeal No. 38/2022 upholding the judgment and order dated 15.03.2025 passed by the learned JMFC, Kamrup(M) convicting the applicant under section 138 of NI Act and sentencing him to undergo SI for 6(six) months and further to pay compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- and in default of payment of compensation, simple imprisonment for another 2(two) months. 3. Notice upon the respondent No.2 was not successful and considering the fact that the revision petitioner, was convicted under NI Act is serving out the sentence of six months, vide order dated 16.09.2025 the applicant was permitted to take dasti service upon the respondent No.2. 4. Office note dated 20.09.2025 indicate that affidavit regarding dasti service has been received and flaged as part of the record. It is also stated therein that in paragraph 2 of the affidavit that the notice was refused. 5. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the affidavit of compliance filed in this regard and drawn my attention to paragraph 2. It is stated that service of dasti was attempted twice but the same was refused by the respondent. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, notice upon respondent No.2 is deemed to be completed. 7. The ground of delay has been mentioned in paragraph 8 of the interlocutory application. Page No.# 3/3 8. The respondent /complainant remains unrepresented. 9. The quantum of delay is on the higher sigde; however, considering the aforesaid circumstances regarding non appearance of the respondent and the fact that the petitioner is challenging his conviction and sentence in criminal law – I am inclined to condone the delay. 10. Accordingly, the delay of 295 days is hereby condoned. 11. Registry is directed to register the connected Criminal Appeal and list the same for admission. 12. This interlocutory application accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant