Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010086392026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/483/2026 MD MAZIDUL ISLAM SON OF JAHIDUL ISLAM RESIDENT OF VILL- KHANDARPAR, P.S. BARPETA DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781252 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MAZEDA KHATUN WIFE OF SIDDIQUE ALI RESIDENTOF VILL- KHANDARPAR P.S. HOWLY DIST. BARPETA ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. V A CHOWDHURY, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. S NAZNIN (R-2),MR. SAYED SALIM AHMED (R-2),MR. M ALAMGEER (R-2) BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 20.08.2026 Heard Mr. V.A. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. M. Page No.# 2/3 Alamgeer, learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party No.2 and Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State opposite party No.1. 2. This application under Section 5 and 29 of the Limitation Act is preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 198 days in filing the connected criminal revision petition against the judgment and order dated 14.07.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta, in Criminal Appeal No.29/2024, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta has upheld the judgment and order of conviction dated 29.08.2024, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, in N.I. Case No.123/2022, whereby the applicant stood convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2(two) months and also to pay a fine of Rs.7,50,000/- with default stipulation. 3. Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and the opposite party No.2 are relatives by relation of marriage and they were negotiating to settle the dispute amicably, but the same failed to yield any result and therefore, this petition could not be filed in time and the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial and he has arguable point in the revision petition and therefore, it is contended to allow is application. 4. Per contra, Mr. Alamgeer, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has opposed the petition on the ground that there is almost 7 months delay in preferring the revision petition, whereas the punishment imposed is only 2 months. 5. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and this Court finds that the delay of 198 days, in preferring the connected criminal revision petition, is sufficiently explained and accordingly, the same stands condoned. 6. Now the Registry will register and number the connected criminal revision petition Page No.# 3/3 and list the same before the Court as soon as practicable. 7. In terms of above, the I.A. stands disposed of. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE