Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd v. Sukhram Gowala

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010062342020 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oI.A.(Crl.)/573/2020o SHRIoRAMoTRANSPORToFINANCEoCOMPANYoLTDo AoNONoBANKINGoFINANCEoCOMPANYoREGISTEREDoUNDERoTHEo COMPANIESoACT,o1956,oHAVINGoITSoREGISTEREDoOFFICEoATo4THoFLOORo MOOKAMBIKAoCOMPLEX,oLADYoDESIKAoPARK,oMYLAPOREoRoToROAD,o CHENNAI-o600004oANDoVARIOUSoOTHERoBRANCHESoTHROUGHOUToTHEo COUNTRYoINCLUDINGoONEoAToA.T.oROAD,oOPPOSITEoHIJUGURUIoPOLICEo OUToPOST,oP.O.,oP.S.oANDoDIST.-oTINSUKIA,oASSAM,oREP.oBYoITSo CONSTITUTEDoATTORNEY. VERSUSo SUKHRAMoGOWALAo S/O-oLATEoKRISHNAoGOWALA,oR/O-oPENGREE,oP.O.oPENGREEoANDoP.S.o DIGBOI,oDIST.-oTINSUKIA,oASSAM,oPIN-o786174. AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oBoHALDARo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oMR.oRoSoMISHRAoo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo BEFORE HONOURABLEoMRS.oJUSTICEoMITALIoTHAKURIA ORDERo Dateo:oo31-05-2024 o Page No.# 2/3 Heard Mr. B. Haldar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶2This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 200 days in preferring the leave petition under section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. for preferring an appeal against acquittal as per the judgment and order dated 21.06.2019 passed by the learned CJM, Tinsukia in NI case no.53/2012.

¶3It is submitted by Mr. Haldar that the petitioner is a financial institution and for filing the leave petition for preferring an appeal against the order of acquittal he took 200 days to observe the formalities of the institutions.

¶4He further submitted that the grounds have been well explained in para-8 of the present petition.

¶5He further submits that there was no intentional negligence or latches on the part of the petitioner in instituting the connected leave petition as well as the connected criminal appeal against the order of acquittal.

¶6In this context Mr. Mishra, has submitted that the delay is not well explained in the petition and the ground which has been mentioned in the petition is not sufficient for condoning the delay.

¶7However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both sides and for ends of justice the present IA is allowed by condoning the delay of 200 days in preferring the connected leave Page No.# 3/3 application to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal.

¶8This IA stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant