Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010178492025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/878/2025 SANJAY DAS S/O LT. MAKHAN DAS, R/O VILL. BIHAR BEBEJIA, P.S. NAGAON, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM 782142 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR, REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. 2:SMTI TINA MONI DAS W/O TILAK CH. DEKA R/O VILL. HATIGHOR UNDER NAGAON P.S. IN THE DIST. OF MORIGAON ASSAM 78242 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A ATREYA, MS. C KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER 18.08.2025 Heard Mr. A. Atreya, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party no. 1, State of Assam. The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of delay of 44 days, which period of delay is stated to have occurred in filing the Page No.# 2/2 accompanying criminal appeal under Section 415[2] of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 against a Judgment dated 07.04.2025 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge [POCSO], Nagaon in Special POCSO Case no. 147/2022. By the Judgment dated 07.04.2025, the applicant-appellant has been convicted for the offences under Section 448, Indian Penal Code [IPC] and Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act, 2012. For the offence under Section 10 of POCSO Act, the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. I have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant interlocutory application. Having gone through statements and averments made in this application regarding the period of delay in filing the connected appeal, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant- appellant has been able to explain the period of delay of 44 days showing sufficient cause. Moreover, as the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, interest of justice will be better subserved if the appeal is heard on merits leaving aside the technical aspects as regards the delay. The Court is also of the considered view that service of notice upon the opposite party- respondent no. 2/informant can be dispensed with at this stage, as the matter of delay is an aspect which is to be considered by the Court on the backdrop of explanation provided for the delay. In any view of the matter, the accompanying criminal appeal, if admitted, is to be heard on merits only after ensuring service of notice upon the victim/informant/guardian/support person. The instant application seeking condonation of delay of 44 days in filing the accompanying criminal appeal is allowed. The Registry to register the criminal appeal and thereafter to list the appeal for admission. JUDGE Comparing Assistant