Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010038192025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/212/2025 HARISH DAS S/O. SRI NAGEN DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PUBALI NAGAR, P/S. TITABAR, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785630 2: LAKHI DAS D/O. NAGEN DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PUBALI NAGAR P/S. TITABAR DIST. JORHAT ASSAM-785630 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:NABANITA SHARMA D/O. LT. BUDHIN SHARMA RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO 4 ZOO ROAD TINIALI BYE LANE 6 GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM-781003 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS P DEKA, MS. P K ZANNAT,MS. A BEGUM,MR. S N TAMULI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, In Page No.# 2/3 Crl.A. 10551/2024 (Filing Number) HARISH DAS AND ANR VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR ------------ Advocate for : MR. S N TAMULI Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 10.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. S.N. Tamuli, the learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the applicants, praying for condoning the delay of 23 days in filing the connected criminal appeal, where the applicants have impugned the judgment dated 16.08.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, Jorhat in Special (NDPS) Case No. 125/2021, whereby, the applicants were convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(a) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) months. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the Page No.# 3/3 applicants were mainly prevented from approaching this Court, for filing the connected appeal within the period of limitation due to financial constraints and other reasons which has been mentioned by the applicants in paragraph Nos. 3 to 6 of the delay condonation petition. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor considering the grounds taken by the applicants in their application has fairly considered to be fair for condonation of delay. 5. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants are able to show sufficient cause which prevented them from approaching this Court within the period of limitation for filing the connected criminal appeal. 6. Accordingly, the delay of 23 days in filing the connected criminal appeal, is herby condoned. 7. With the above observations, this interlocutory application is accordingly disposed of. 8. The Registry is directed to list the connected criminal appeal for admission in the next week, on a date to be fixed by it. JUDGE Comparing Assistant