Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26536 (GAU)

IMRAN HUSSAIN v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

I.A.(Crl.)/1113/2025 · 2025-11-23

Shamima Jahan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010222292025 2025:GAU-AS:15941 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1113/2025 IMRAN HUSSAIN SON OF ABDUL MOTALEB, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- ISLAMPUR, P.S. LALUK, DISTRICT-LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SARMA, D GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 24.11.2025 Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 97 days in preferring the connected Criminal Appeal filed against the Judgment & Order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Special NDPS Case No. 10/2022. By the said Judgment & Order, the applicant was convicted under Section 21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act and was sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years with fine and default stipulation under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act and to undergo RI for 3 years with fine and default stipulation under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The learned counsel for the applicant had narrated the reasons of delay in paragraph No. 2 of the petition, wherein it was stated that the applicant had no other family members except his brother to take steps to file an appeal against the said Judgment & Order dated 20.03.2025 and that the brother of the applicant was a daily wage labour and that he somehow maintains his family and due to the financial difficulty, the brother of the applicant could not take steps to file appeal in time and that it was only in the 3rd week of September, 2025 the brother of the applicant somehow managed to take steps and come down to Guwahati. The brother of the applicant handed over the documents to the lawyer, who prepared the case and got it ready which caused the delay of Page No.# 3/3 97 days. This Court is satisfied with the reasons narrated in the said Interlocutory Application and deems it fit that the delay of 97 days in preferring the connected appeal be condoned for the ends of justice. Registry is directed to register the connected Criminal Appeal alongwith the Interlocutory Application for suspension of sentence and list it for admission. The instant Interlocutory Application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant