Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010149392026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/734/2026 BHUPEN TAMULI SON OF LATE GANGA RAM TAMULI, RESIDENT OF GAURIPUR, POST OFFICE- CHANGSARI, POLICE STATION-CHANGSARI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781101 VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:PRAGATI FINANCE COMPANY A PROPRIETARY ESTABLISHMENT OF SHRI. NARENDRA KUMAR SETHIA REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR NARENDRA KUMAR SETHIA HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SECOND FLOOR CHAND MARKET AT ROAD GUWAHATI PIN-781001 3:NARENDRA KUMAR SETHIA PROPRIETOR OF PRAGATI FINANCE COMPANY ADDRESS SECOND FLOOR CHAND MARKET AT ROAD GUWAHATI PIN-78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T DEURI, MR. B KALITA,U BHARADWAJ,MS. L WANGSA,MRS. R S DEURI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, I BHATTACHARYYA(R2,3),MR. A CHETIA(R2,3),MR A DAS(R2,3),MR. P DEKA(R2,3) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 14-09-2026 Heard Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 & 3. 2. The Interlocutory Application has arisen out of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking to condone the delay of 1505 days in filing a criminal revision against concurrent findings of guilt against the applicant by the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court in a proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881. 3. The applicant faced prosecution as an accused in C.R. Case No. 167C/2015 before the Court of the learned JMFC, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, and was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act vide judgment and order dated 14.08.2018, and thereby sentenced to undergo SI for 6 months and pay compensation of ₹7,00,000/-. The said conviction and sentence was taken up in appeal, but the same was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 23.04.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 151/2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. 4. In this backdrop, the applicant, being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, sought to file a revision. However, by the time the revision was filed, it involved a delay of 1505 days, for which the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 have been invoked in this Interlocutory Application. 5. The learned counsel, Mr. Deuri drawing attention to paragraph-5 of the application, fairly submits that the grounds of delay have been enunciated there Page No.# 3/4 under, which reveal that the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of his criminal appeal only on 20.06.2023 when he was arrested. It is also stated in para-5 that after filing the appeal, the applicant failed to communicate with his advocate and was unaware of the status of the criminal case. The said relevant para-5 may be reproduced herein below: “5. That the accused/petitioner states that it was only when the accused/petitioner was arrested on on 20/6/2026, the accused/petitioner became aware that the criminal appeal preferred by the accused/petitioner was disposed of vide impugned judgment and order dated 23/4/2021. It is true that after the filing of the appeal, the accused/petitioner failed to communicate with his advocate, as such, the accused/petitioner was completely unaware that the criminal appeal preferred by him was already been dismissed. The elder brother of the accused/petitioner met their counsel at Guwahati on 27/6/2026 and handed over all the documents. The counsel of the petitioner thereafter took 19 days to prepare his case and file the criminal revision challenging the judgment and order dated 23/4/2021 passed in connection with Criminal Appeal No.151/2018 by which the Learned Additional Session Judge No. 5, Kamrup (M) was pleased to dismiss the appeal and upheld the judgment and order dated 14/8/2018 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M) in connection with C.R. Case No. 167/2015 under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The accused/petitioner ought to had filed the criminal revision within 22/7/2021, but, unfortunately, a delay of 1505 days had occurred in filing the Criminal revision before this Hon'ble Gauhati High Court. The accused/petitioner respectfully submits that considering the matter in its entirety, your Lordships may be pleased to condone the delay of 1505 days in filing the Criminal Appeal.” 6. Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent herein, has filed an objection opposing the prayer for delay condonation. Supporting the said objection, learned counsel for the respondent contends that there is an inadequate explanation for the delay and, rather, the contentions of the Page No.# 4/4 applicant reveal that he is guilty of gross negligence. 7. I have given my due consideration to the matter. It is true that the delay condonation being adjudicated is in the context of a person facing conviction and sentence; however, this arises in a complaint case in the nature of a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Nevertheless, the aspect of delay and diligence on the part of the litigant cannot be overlooked altogether. 8. In the instant case, the quantum of delay is very much on the higher side vis-à-vis the prescribed limitation period of 90 days for filing a criminal revision. Further, upon perusing the grounds enunciated in paragraph-5 of the application, this Court is unable to come to the opinion that the significant delay has been properly explained. Rather, the Court finds force in the contention of the respondent’s side that the delay has not been explained and reveals carelessness on the part of the applicant. 9. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, this Court is unable to find sufficient merit for exercising powers under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 10. Resultantly, the Interlocutory Application stands dismissed, along with concomitant consequences with regard to the main revision. However, the parties are at liberty to make efforts for compounding of the matter, even at this stage, in keeping with the principles laid down in Damodar S. Prabhu -versus- Sayed Babalal H, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663. The Interlocutory Application stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant