Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030008052024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/54/2024 The State of Mizoram Aizawl VERSUS K. Lalawmpuia Keifang, Saitual District Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Mary Lalruatkimi Khiangte Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu Linked Case : Crl.A./48/2024 The State of Mizoram Aizawl VERSUS K. Lalawmpuia Keifang Saitual District Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Mary Lalruatkimi Khiangte Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu Page No.# 2/4 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 01.12.2025 Heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State applicant. Also heard Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the sole respondent. By way of this application, the applicant is seeking condonation of delay of 256 days in preferring the accompanying appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Special Court, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Session Case No. 104/2021 arising out of Crl. Trl. No. 1433 of 2021. The applicant being aggrieved by the acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court vide Judgment & Order dated 27.03.2024 preferred the accompanying appeal, however, there has been a delay of 256 days. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application for condonation of the delay has been preferred. Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the applicant submits that the delay is totally unintentional and beyond the control of the applicant. She further submits that the reasons of delay is not due to the negligence, but is bonafide and accordingly, the same is ought to be condoned for the interest of justice. Per contra, Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the sole respondent, vehemently opposes the prayer of condonation by submitting that there has been no day-to-day explanation for the delay of 256 Page No.# 3/4 days occurred in filing the accompanying appeal. He further submits that the explanation averred in the condonation application appears to be casual and not bonafide. He further relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Postmaster General And Others Vs. Living Media India Limited & Another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on record. It appears that initially, the delay had occurred because of the Government counsel of the Trial Court communicating the Judgment & Order of the Trial Court after a lapse of approximately about 37 days. It appears that after the office of the applicant received the copy of the Judgment & Order on 03.05.2024, the same was forwarded by the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Home Department to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Eastern Range) to examine whether an appeal should be filed before this Court or not vide letter dated 26.05.2024. It appears that upon due consideration, the matter was sent back to the Under Secretary on 10.06.2024 with the direction to proceed with the appeal before this Court. It further appears that the aforesaid letter of 10.06.2024 was received by the office of the Under Secretary on 11.06.2024. It further appears that thereafter, the Under Secretary was pleased to get the necessary steps to forward the papers to the office of the Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram for enabling the said office to file the appeal. It further appears that the Under Secretary had also obtained the certified copy of the Judgment & Order to hand over the same to the office of the Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram. It further appears that all the requisite papers were duly received in the office of the Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram, on 09.09.2024. It further appears Page No.# 4/4 that upon the aforesaid papers being received in the office of the Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram, the learned Addl. Advocate General endorsed the matter to Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte on 09.09.2024, to do the needful in order to file the appeal. However, at that relevant point of time, Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte having been blessed with a child on 20.06.2024, was on maternity leave till 19.09.2024. She could attend the aforesaid brief only upon rejoining her office and upon seeing the endorsement, she took all the necessary steps to prepare and file the same before this Court. However, during the said process, a delay of 256 days occurred. There is no quarrel to the proposition urged by Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned Legal Aid Counsel, that the Government Departments are under special obligation to ensure that they perform their duty with diligence and commitment and unless proper explanation is given for condonation of delay, the usual explanation as regards file being kept pending for several months ought not to be accepted. However, in the context of the present case, it is established that the grounds of delay are bonafide and have been sufficiently explained. That being so, the delay of 256 days in preferring the accompanying appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application accordingly stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant