Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010209662022 2025:GAU-AS:11306 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/640/2022 GAUTAM SINHA ROY C/O VISUAL VOICE, 12TH BYE-LANE RAJAT KAMAL PATH R.G. BARUAH ROAD, GHY- 24, DIST.- KAMRUP (M). VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM. 2:M/S SIVAM INDUSTRIES @ SHIVAM INDUSTRIES A PROPRIEORSHIP FIRM HAVING IT ROAD OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD ABC TARUN NAGAR BYE LANE NO. 4 GUWAHATI- 781005 DIST.- KAMRUP (M) REPRESENT BY IT PROPRIETOR SUDIP BAID (TINKU) S/O KANHAIYALAL BAID R/O TARUN NAGAR HOUSE NO. 37 BYE LANE NO. 4 GUWAHATI PIN- 781005 P.S.- DISPUR DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M) Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U C RABHA, MR. S M SARMA,MR. P K DAS Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. J BORO,MR J DAS,MR. SAILENDRA DEKA Linked Case : GAUTAM SINHA ROY VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. -E ------------ Advocate for : MR. U C RABHA Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. -E BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 22.08.2025 Heard learned counsel Mr. U. C. Rabha, for the applicant, Sri Gautam Sinha Roy who has filed this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 with prayer for condonation of delay of 214 days for filing the criminal revision petition against the impugned judgment dated 21.12.2019 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 105/2017, whereby the learned Appellate Court upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 12.04.2017 in C.R. Case No. 1001/2015 under Section 138 NI Act. 2. Heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State and Mr. S. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Page No.# 3/5 3. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant who was well aware of the impugned judgment and order dated 21.12.2019 but the applicant was ailing. The applicant has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto WP(C) No. 3/2020, whereby the prayer for limitation during the Covid pandemic was extended from 15.03.2020 up to 28.02.2022. 4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has submitted that the applicant has not shown sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. It is evident from his conduct that his intent is malafide. Earlier there was amicable settlement between both the parties and an agreement was executed between the applicant and the respondent no.2 whereby the applicant agreed to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rupees One Lac only). Thereafter, the applicant failed to pay the compensation and he prayed for extension of time which was also allowed by the learned Trial Court. Meanwhile, the applicant preferred a Revision petition no. 201/2017, which was dismissed. Memorandum of settlement was also executed in the District Mediation Centre which is marked as Annexure-1 of the objection filed by the respondent no.2. 5. I have scrutinized the medical certificate submitted on behalf of the applicant. 6. The Annexure-2 of the application depicts that the applicant was suffering from Jaundice since 16.12.2019 and was under the treatment of Dr. Ikbal Hussain, a Diabetes specialist since 16.12.2019 up to 14.03.2020. Thereafter, Annexure-3 of the application depicts that the applicant, Sri Gautam Sinha Roy, was suffering from Ischemic heart disease and was advised bed rest for 1½ months w.e.f. 15.02.2022 and this certificate was issued by Dr. Krishanu Krori. Annexure-5 of the application is a certificate issued by Dr. Ikbal Hussain, a Diabetes specialist who has certified that the applicant was suffering from Page No.# 4/5 Dengue since 01.04.2022 and he was under treatment till 28.06.2022. Thereafter, Annexure-6 of the application reveals that the applicant was suffering from Sepsis and UTI since 04.07.2022 and he was under treatment till his recovery and the treatment was provided by Dr. Ikbal Hussain, a Diabetes specialist and he was certified to be fit on 28.09.2022. 7. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended the period of limitation vide Suo Moto WP(C) No. 3/2020 with effect from 15.03.2020 upto 28.02.2022. 8. I have also the perused the Criminal Appeal No. 105/2017, wherein it was held by the learned Appellate Court of First instance that it has been held and observed that:- “27. But, in the present case in hand the accused/appellant except making a bald statement that he has no outstanding liabilities and that he has made the payment, has not produced any evidence nor any documents in support of it. In view of the above, it is held that accused/appellant had issued a cheque of Rs. 75,000/- in discharge of his outstanding dues which was dishonoured. 28. Hence, perusal of judgment of the ld. Trial court clearly goes to show that the trial court had appreciated the oral and documentary evidence led by both sides and ld. Trial court has not committed any illegality. The findings was given by assigning the reasons and no interference is necessary to the judgment of the trial court under appeal. Hence, for the above reasons I answer above point No.1 to 3 in the Negative.” 9. The sentence of imprisonment was reduced from 4 (four) months to 1 (one) month whereas the sentence of compensation under Section 138 of the NI Act was upheld by the learned Appellate Court. In the meanwhile, the applicant decided to resolve the matter through mediation and executed a memorandum of settlement on 17.07.2017 and the applicant failed to pay the compensation to the complainant and brought up a criminal petition no. Page No.# 5/5 201/2017 for prayer of extension of time by 4 (four) more months in compliance to the said memorandum of settlement dated 13.02.2017 which was dismissed by this court vide order dated 15.03.2017 in criminal petition no. 201/2017. 10. By executing a memorandum of settlement in the mediation centre, the appellant has already admitted his liability to pay the compensation which he finally failed to pay and then he preferred the appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 105/2017, which was finally dismissed by the Appellate Court of first instance vide order dated 21.12.2019. 11. After considering the submissions at the Bar with circumspection, it is held that the applicant has addressed this Court in a casual manner. It does not appear to be plausible that the applicant would suffer from 4 (four) distinct and varied ailment back to back, that too exactly at the time, immediately to even out the period of limitation. It appears that even if the revision petition is admitted to merits, the applicant may not have a strong case. The applicant has not projected sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. Hence, application with prayer for condonation of delay is rejected. 12. In terms of the above observation, this application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant