Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040015102022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(Crl)/62/2022 The State of Arunachal Pradesh Represented by its Public Proseuctor. VERSUS Chow Engkham Loungchot and 4 Ors. Son of Chow Tem Longchot, Resident of NongtawKhamti, PO and PS Namsai, Namsai District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:Saddam Hussain Age: 31 Occupation : Son of Sukkur Ali Resident of Borpura Village PO Manikganj and PS Karimganj Karimganj District Assam. 3:Chow Bichaya Longhan Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Chow Panita Longhan Resident of Wagun II Village PO and PS Namsai Namsai District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:Chow PenkhamKamthong Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Chow Thun Kamthong Resident of NongtawKamti Village Page No.# 2/3 PO and PS Namsai Namsai District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Chow TansengLongchot Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Chow NipingLongchot Resident of Wagun II Village PO and PS Namsai Namsai District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : , P P of AP Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 04.12.2025 Heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant/appellant-State. Office Note dated 10.11.2025 reflects that service in respect of respondent No. 2 has been received. The Office Note dated 10.10.2025 further reflects that respondents No. 1, 3, 4 and 5 have also received the service. In view of the above, notice upon all the respondents are completed. However, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay of 190 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and order dated 04.03.2022, passed by the learned Page No.# 3/3 Special Judge (POCSO), Tezu, in POCSO Case No.24(NMS)/2019, under Sections 328/342/376(3) of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, whereby all the accused persons have been acquitted. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the applicant-State submits that the delay in filing the connected appeal occurred during the process of official procedures, and the reasons therefor, have been explained in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the application. Upon consideration of the explanation given in the aforesaid paragraphs, this Court is of the view that the applicant/appellant was prevented by a sufficient cause in not preferring the connected appeal within the stipulated time. The respondents, despite having received notice, have preferred not to contest the prayer for condonation of delay, which indicates that they have no objection to the condonation of delay in filing the connected appeal. In view of the above, the delay of 190 days in filing the connected appeal is hereby condoned. With the above, the I.A.(Crl.) stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant