Page No.# 1/3 GAHC030002152026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/20/2026 in Crl. A. No. 5/2026 The State of Mizoram (Through Mizoram Lokayukta), Aizawl Aizawl VERSUS Sh. J. Lalhmingliana S/o Thangkhama R/o Kulikawn, Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr C Lalfakzuala Advocate for the Respondent : Mr H Lalmuankima BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 25.05.2026 Heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Mizoram Lokayukta, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. K. Laltanpuii, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By way of this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant seeks condonation of a delay of 82 days in Page No.# 2/3 filing the special leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Mizoram, Aizawl in S.R. (PCA) No. 3 of 2024 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a) & (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 409 IPC. 3. The delay has been explained in paragraph 3 of the application by setting out the sequence of events leading to the filing of the appeal, including the time taken in obtaining the judgment, seeking administrative approval, inter-departmental correspondence, court holidays, procurement of certified copies, and finalisation of the appeal papers. 4. Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned Special Public Prosecutor, submits that the delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to negligence, but occasioned on account of the procedural steps required before institution of the appeal. It is submitted that unless the delay is condoned, the applicant would suffer prejudice. 5. Ms. K. Laltanpuii, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, fairly submits that she has no objection if the delay is condoned. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the grounds stated in the application, this Court is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay. The explanation furnished does not reflect deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides. 7. Accordingly, the delay of 82 days in filing the special leave to Page No.# 3/3 appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.11.2025 is condoned. 8. The interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant