Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010268692025 2025:GAU-AS:16783 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1305/2025 SRI PANKAJ SARMAH SON OF SRI PREMESWAR SARMAH R/O NO. 3 AMGURIP.O. SASANI P.S. DIMAKUCHI DIST. UDALGURI (BTR), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SRI ANIRAM BORO S/O LATE ANGHARAN B ORO ASI OF PANERY POLICE STATION DIST.UDALGURI (BTR) ASSAM PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL- MUGAKHOL P.S. BOKO PIN-781123 DIST. KAMRUP ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P DEKA, I BHATTACHARYYA,MR A DAS,MR. A CHETIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : EC/0/0 SRI PANKAJ SARMAH Page No.# 2/3 ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : ANSHUMAN DAS Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR Linked Case : OTC/0/0 SRI PANKAJ SARMAH ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : ANSHUMAN DAS Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 05.12.2025 1. Learned counsel Mr. R. Hoque is present for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Sarmah who has filed this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 with prayer for condonation of delay of 50 days in preferring the Criminal Page No.# 3/3 Revision petition. 2. The applicant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13.03.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udalguri in PRC Case No. 426/2022 and judgment and order dated 04.07.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri in Criminal Appeal No. 15/2025. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K. Baishya is present for the respondent State. 4. It is submitted that the delay was not intentional. The petitioner had applied for certified copy of the order dated 04.07.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 15/2025 and he received the same on 31.07.2025. 5. The petitioner was unable to engage an advocate to file the revision petition owing to financial constraints, as the petitioner has to look after his old and ailing parents and he is the sole breadwinner of the family. Finally the petitioner was able to file his revision. It is submitted that there is no malafide in filling the petition and delay was not intentional. 6. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. Sufficient grounds have been shown which led to the delay in filing the petition. 7. For the interest of justice, the delay of 50 days is hereby condoned. 8. Registry to register the connected appeal. 9. In terms of the above observation, this application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant