Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010049062026 2026:GAU-AS:5809 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/362/2026 RANJAN SARKAR AND 2 ORS S/O RABINDRA SARKAR, R/O HOUSE NO. 84, 9 MILE UTTAR PABIACHERRA, PS. KUMARGHAT, DIST. UNAKOTI, TRIPURA 2: MADHU DEY S/O. GOPAL DEY VILL. SUKANTA NAGAR PS. KUMARGHAT DIST. UNAKOTI TRIPURA. 3: AKASH MAJUMDAR S/O. PARIMAL MAJUMDAR VILL. LAKHSMIPUR PS. PEEHARTHAL DIST. UNAKOTI TRIPURA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE STANDING COUNSEL, NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU (NCB) Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B HALDAR, Advocate for the Respondent : , MR. R K D CHOUDHURY, SC, NCB BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Page No.# 2/3 Date : 28.04.2026. Heard Mr. B. Haldar, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the applicants/appellants. Also heard Mr. RKD Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate cum Dy. SGI, assisted by Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Union of India. This is an application Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying for condonation of delay of 1217 days, in preferring the connected Criminal Appeal from Jail against the judgment dated 07.09.2022, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in NDPS Case No.92/2018, whereby the accused/applicants were convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced them to under R.I. for ten (10) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh with default stipulations. It is submitted by Mr. Haldar, the learned counsel for the applicants that the judgment was passed on 07.09.2022 but due to their illiteracy and poor financial conditions, the accused/applicants could not engage any counsel on their behalf to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 17.09.2022, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in NDPS Case No.92/2018. Thereafter, the jail authority has made contact with the Distrcit Legal Services Authority, wherefrom the High Court Legal Services Authority was informed and accordingly, Mr. Haldar is appointed in the present case to prefer an appeal as a Legal Aid Counsel. Thus, there was no such negligence or laches on the part of the applicants/appellants and only due to their poor financial condition and illiteracy and in observing some official formalities, there was the delay in Page No.# 3/3 preferring the connected appeal. Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Advocate cum Dy. SGI submitted that there may not be any laches or negligence on the part of the present applicants/appellants but from the annexure filed along with the present interlocutory application, it revealed that the Jail authority had acted very casually and even the documents/letters were communicated without mentioning any date on those letters. Thus, there was a casual approach from the jail authority. However, the learned Dy. SGI submitted that he raise no objection if the delay of 1217 days in filing the connected appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the grounds mentioned, which are considered to be reasonable and justified, the delay of 1217 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. The Registry is accordingly directed to register the appeal and list the same accordingly, reflecting the name of the learned Legal Aid Counsel as the counsel for the appellants in the cause list as well as in the case record. This Interlocutory Application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant