Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010091992025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/449/2025 SANTOSH AGARWAL @ SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWALA S/O LT. DEVI DUTT AGARWAL, PROPRIETOR OF M/S GAYATRI ENTERPRISE, R/O VILL. PENGRI CHARIALI, P.O. AND P.S. PENGRI, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP BY THE PP ASSAM 2:M/S KHEREM TEA COMPANY. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BALAJI TOWER NO. 1 3RD FLOOR S.R. LOHIA ROAD ABOVE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE P.O. P.S. AND DIST. TINSUKIA HAVING ITS FACTORY/OFFICE AT VILL. - KHEREM MURA P.O. -BORDUMSA DIST. CHANGLANG ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN 792056 3:OM DUTTA SHARMA S/O SRI ROTASH SHARMA PARTNER OF M/A KHEREM TEA CO. R/O VILL. KHEREM MURA P.O. BORDUMSA DIST. CHANGLANG ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN 792056 Page No.# 2/3 4:SMTI PARMESHWARI SHARMA W/O SRI ROTASH SHARMA PARTNER OF M/S KHEREM TEA CO. R/O VILL. KHEREM MURA P.O. BORDUMSA DIST. CHANGLAND ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN 792056 5:MAHESH SHARMA S/O SRI ROTASH SHARMA PARTNER OF M/S KHEREM TEA CO. R/O VILL. KHEREM MURA P.O. BORDUMSA DIST. CHANGLANG ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN 79205 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M AHMED, A. K. KANU Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : ST.Rev./0/0 SANTOSH AGARWAL ALIAS SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWALA TINSUKIA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REP BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MUZAMIL AHMED Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS Page No.# 3/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 19.11.2025 Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Bhaskar Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state-respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condonation of 18 days delay in preferring the connected Appeal against the judgment dated 07.02.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Criminal Appeal No. 32(4)/2024. 3. I have gone through this application and have found that the delay has been satisfactorily explained. 4. At this stage, going for issue of notice upon the respondent No.2 would be nothing but sheer waste of time. 5. Therefore, the delay is condoned. 6. The connected appeal shall be registered and listed for admission hearing. With the aforesaid direction, this IA stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant