Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030004442025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/29/2025 Union of India R/b Asst. Commissioner, Customs Division Aizawl VERSUS Sh. Lalhmingliana and Anr. S/o Thaneihsanga, Zokhawthar, Champhai 2:Smt. Lalhminglian Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Johny L Tochhawng Advocate for the Respondent : Ms Dinari T Azyu for R1 Linked Case : Crl.A./21/2025 Union of India r/b Asst. Commissioner Customs Division Aizawl Aizawl VERSUS Sh. Lalhmingliana and Anr. S/o Thaneihsanga Zokhawthar Champhai District 2:Sh. Lalhmingliani D/o Lalzawna Zotlang Page No.# 2/4 Champhai Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Johny L Tochhawng Advocate for the Respondent : Ms Dinari T Azyu for R1 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 10.06.2026 Heard Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This IA has been preferred seeking condonation of delay of 328 days in filing a Special Leave Application to Criminal Appeal against the impugned Judgment & Order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the Learned CJM, Champhai in Criminal Complaint No. 9/2022. 3. An objection has been filed on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. It is stated that due to bona fide and inadvertent reasons, there has been a delay in preferring the connected appeal. The reason shown in the instant IA is that the copy of the impugned Judgment & Order dated 23.02.2024 was received by the Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Customs Page No.# 3/4 Division, Aizawl on 03.07.2024, i.e., after a delay of 131 days, but there is no explanation for the said delay or as to why no certified copy was applied for earlier. 5. It is further stated that on 05.07.2024, the Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Customs Division, Aizawl, issued a letter requesting a Legal Opinion from the Departmental Counsel. This indicates that even after receipt of the Judgment & Order on 23.02.2024, there was a delay of more than 4 months merely in seeking a Legal Opinion, which also remains unexplained. Furthermore, the plea of Court closure from 08.07.2024 to 17.07.2024 has been taken to explain the late receipt of the letter by the Departmental Counsel. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, none of the explanations given can be regarded as sufficient. In fact, in respect of the aforesaid part of the delay, no specific explanation whatsoever is available. 7. Since the aforesaid portions of the explanation fail to show sufficient cause, the reasons for the remaining part of the delay need not be taken into consideration by the Court. 8. Further, having regard to the grounds on which the case before the Page No.# 4/4 Learned CJM, Champhai was decided in favor of the accused/respondent, no miscarriage of justice can be said to have been occasioned. 9. Having regard to the above, I am of the view that no sufficient cause has been shown to merit the condonation of delay. 10. Accordingly, the IA stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant