Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010218482025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1144/2025 MD ABDUL JALIL SON OF LATE SURUJ ALI RESIDENT OF MORITOLI, WARD NO. 9, PS LAHARIGHAT, PIN 782124, DISTRICT MORIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MD RAFIQUL ISLAM SON OF LATE ABDUL KADIR RESIDENT OF MORITOLI WARD NO 9 PS LAHARIGHAT DISTRICT MORIGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P KATAKI, MR J C BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 24-10-2025 [M. Choudhury, J] Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and Ms. B. Page No.# 2/3 Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel and Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party no. 1. 2. The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred seeking condonation of delay of 253 days, which delay is stated to have occurred in preferring the accompanying criminal appeal under Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 31 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The accompanying criminal appeal has been preferred to assail a Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge [POCSO], Morigaon [‘the Special Court’, for short] in POCSO Case no. 88/2019. By the Judgment and Order, the applicant-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 AB, Indian Penal Code [IPC] and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. In view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, the applicant-appellant has been sentenced under Section 376 AB, IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, with default stipulation. 3. The applicant-appellant has explained in paragraphs 8 - 11 of the instant application the reasons for delay of 253 days. 4. We have gone through the statements and averments made in the instant application, more particularly, paragraphs 8 – 11 thereof. 5. On having gone through the statements and averments made in this application, we are of the considered view that the applicant-appellant has been Page No.# 3/3 able to explain the period of delay of 253 days showing sufficient cause, moreover, as the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years, interest of justice would be better sub-served if the accompanying criminal appeal is heard on merits leaving aside the technical aspects as regards the delay. 6. 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. 7. The instant application seeking condonation of delay of 253 days in filing the accompanying criminal appeal is allowed. 8. The Registry to register the criminal appeal and thereafter, to list the appeal for admission. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant