Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010017652023 2025:GAU-AS:6188 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/125/2023 NANDA KARMAKAR S/O LATE MANGAL KARMAKAR, R/O BARUAH BAGAN, P.S.- HALWATING, DIST.- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM. 2:ANI GANJU W/O LATE RAMAKANTA GANJU R/O BARUAH BAGAN P.S.- HALWATING DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A GOGOI, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, In Crl.A(J). Case No. 813/2023 WITH Page No.# 2/4 Crl.A(J). Case No. 813/2023 (filing number) WITH I.A.(Crl.) Case No. 815/2023 (filing number) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 14.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. On perusal of the Office Note dated 05.05.2025, it appears that neither the A/D Card nor the un-served notice in respect of the notices issued to the respondent No. 2 by registered post with A/D has been returned back. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had taken steps for issuance of notice on the respondent No. 2 by giving correct address of the respondent No. 2 in the notices. 4. It also appears that the notices were sent through registered post with A/D on 28.09.2023. 5. Lot of time has elapsed since then. Therefore, this Court deems the notice sent to the respondent No. 2 through registered post has been duly served. 6. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the applicant for condoning the delay of 99 days in preferring the connected Criminal Appeal, whereby, the petitioner, as applicant has impugned the judgment and order dated 16.07.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sivasagar in Sessions Case No. 102(s-s) of 2019. Page No.# 3/4 7. By the impugned judgment and order dated 16.07.2022, the applicant was convicted under Section 454 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for 2(two) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-(Rupees Two Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to suffer further simple imprisonment for 2(two) months. 8. He was also convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10(ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo 6(six) months of rigorous imprisonment. 9. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was in custody after the delivery of the impugned judgment as he was serving out sentence imposed on him and he could not file the appeal on his own and therefore, he has to withdraw this jail appeal. The reasons for delay has been mentioned in paragraph Nos. 3,4,5 and 6 of the application for condoning the delay. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor concealed to the prayer for condoning the delay, considering the fact that the instant appeal is a jail appeal and filed through a Legal Aid Counsel. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides. 12. Considering the reasons cited for the delay in preferring the connected criminal appeal as described in paragraph Nos. 2,3,4, 5 and 6 of the condonation of delay application to the sufficient cause, this Court is hereby condoned the delay of 99 days in preferring the connected criminal appeal and accordingly disposed of the Interlocutory Application. 13. The Registry to register the connected criminal appeal and list the same Page No.# 4/4 for admission after a week. 14. This Interlocutory Application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant