Central Bureau of Investigation, v. Mr. R.U. Barlaskar and 3 Ors

ORDER Date : 17.02.2023.

Heard Mr. M. Haloi, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI. Also heard Mr. N. Islam, learned counsel for the respondents. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 240 days in filing the regular appeal. It has been submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI that the learned Spl. Judge, Additional Court No. 2, CBI, Chandmari, Guwahati passed the impugned judgment dated 31.12.2016 and thereafter, it took some time to obtain the certified copy for preferring the appeal for which the delay of 240 days was occurred. It is further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional. The delay is also explained categorically in this petition as to how there was dealy of 240 days in preferring the appeal. In support of his case, he has placed reliance a case law reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 357 State of Rajasthan vs Banwari Lal and Anr. In this case, there is huge delay of 1880 days in preferring the appeal against the impugned judgment and order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that- "Applying the law laid down by this Court on principles for sentencing, to the facts of the case of hand, we are of the opinion that the approach of the High Court is most cavalier. Therefore, the order of the High Court merits interference by this Court. Merely on the technical ground of delay and merely on the ground that after the impugned judgment and order, which is Page No.# 6/7 unsustainable, the accused have resettled in their lives and their conduct has since been satisfactory and they have not indulged in any criminal activity, is no ground not to condone the delay and not to consider the appeal on merits. Hence, the delay of 1880 days in preferring the appeal is condoned." In this context, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that they have filed their affidavit-in-opposition and it is stated that all the respondents were acquitted by the trial court after full trial. Moreover, the delay was occurred due to negligence or time to obtain such approval from the department. It is further stated due to such negligence, the respondents cannot be put to harassment and some of the respondents have already been retired. There is no sufficient grounds shown by the applicant for which he has raised strong objection if the delay of 240 days is condoned. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion that the grounds which have been shown by the applicant for delay in preferring the regular appeal is satisfactory. Day to day delay is well explained in this petition. Accordingly, the delay of 240 days is hereby stands condoned. The Registry is directed to register the connected appeal and list it accordingly. With the above observation, the I/A stands disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE Page No.# 7/7 Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/7 GAHC010224322018 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oI.A.(Crl.)/788/2018o CENTRALoBUREAUoOFoINVESTIGATION,o THROUGHoITSoHEADoOFoBRANCH,oCBI/ANTIoCORRUPTIONoBRANCH,o OAKLAND,oSHILLONGo793001,oMEGHALAYA. VERSUSo MR.oR.U.oBARLASKARoANDo3oORSo S/Oo(L)oASABoUDDINoBARLASKAR,oTHEoTHENoAEEoANDoI/C,oJIRIBAMo INVESTIGATIONoDIVISION,oBRAHMAPUTRAoBOARDo(SINCEoRETIRED),o PERMANENToADD.oVILL.oSATURAKANDI,oP.O.oDHANARIoVIAoSONAIMUKH, SILCHAR,oDIST.oCACHAR,oASSAMo788001 2:MR.oJAYANTAoTHAKURIA oS/Oo(L)oBALRAMoTHAKURIA oTHEoTHENoJE oJIRIBAMoSUB-DIVISION oBRAHMAPUTRAoBOARD oPRESENToADD.oMECHANICALoSUB-DIVISION oCWC oGUWAHATI oPERMANENToADD.oVILL.oGOPINATHoNAGAR oP.O.oPALTANoBAZAR oDIST.oKAMRUP oGUWAHATIo16 3:MR.oANUPAMoNATH oS/OoSHRIoANILoNATH oTHEoTHENoJE.oJIRIBAMoSUB-DIVISION oBRAHMAPUTRAoBOARDo(SINCEoRETIRED) oPRESENToADD.oNEID-I oCWC oSILCHAR Page No.# 2/7 PERMANENT ADDRESS P.O.AND VILL. PANIBORA DIST. CACHAR ASSAM 788001 4:MR. K.M. BRAHMA THE THEN JE JIRIBAM SUB DIVISION BRAHMAPUTRA BOARD PRESENT ADD. H/NO 74 LACHIA PATH PATARKUCHI BASISTHA GUWAHATI-29 PREMANENT ADDRESS VILL. CHAKMA P.O. AND P.S. GOSHAIGOAN DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 78800 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C KEYAL Advocate for the Respondent : MR N ISLAM Linked Case : CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VERSUS MR R.U. BARLASKAR and 3 ORS 2:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CHAMARIA DEV. BLOCK P.O. NAGARBERA DIST KAMRUP R ASSAM PIN-781127 3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER KAMRUP P.O. AMINGAON DIST KAMRUP ASSAM PageoNo.#o3/7 oPIN-781031 o4:THEoSECY 46oNO.oRANGAPANIoGAONoPANCHAYAT oP.O.BADLABAZAR oP.S.BOKO oDISToKAMRUP oASSAM oPIN-781127 o5:MOIDULoISLAM S/OoMD.AKTARoALI oVILL.oNO.o2 oSOUTHoRANGAPANI oP.O.oBADLAoBAZAR oP.S.oBOKO oDISToKAMRUPoR oASSAM oPIN-781127 o6:SHOWKAToALI S/OoMD.ABDULoKUDDUS oVILL.oNO.1 oSOUTHoRANGAPANI oP.O.oBADLAoBAZAR oP.S.BOKO oDISToKAMRUPoR oASSAM PIN-781127 o7:ABDULoAWAL S/OoLToMAKBULoHUSSAIN oVILLoNO.o3 oSOUTHoRANGAPANI oP.O.oBADLAoBAZAR oP.S.BOKO oDISToKAMRUPoR oASSAM oPIN-781127 o8:AKKARoALI S/OoLT.oGULAMoMUSTAFA oVILL.oNO.1oSOUTHoRANGAPANI oP.O.BADLAoBAZAR oP.S.BOKO oDISToKAMRUPoR oASSAM oPIN-781127 Page No.# 4/7 9:ASIYA KHATUN W/O MD. ABDUL MALIK VILL NO. 1 SOUTH RANGAPANI P.O.BADLA BAZAR P.S.BOKO DIST KAMRUP R ASSAM PIN-781127 10:JAMELA KHATUN W/O MD.ABDUL MAZID VILL NO.2 SOUTH RANGAPANI P.O. BADLA BAZAR P.S.BOKO DIST KAMRUP R ASSAM PIN-781127 SL. NO. 5 TO C/O . SECY. OF 46 NO. RANGAPANI GAON PANCHAYAT P.O. BADLA BAZAR P.S.BOKO DIST KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781127 11:HASSAN BILLAL AHMED S/O MD.USMAN GANI VILL NO. 2 SOUTHRANGAPANI P.O.BADLA BAZAR P.S.BOKO DIST KAMRUP R ASSAM PIN-781127 12:ADAM ALI S/O LT. NASER ALI VILL NO. 2 SOUTH RANGAPANI P.O. BADLA BAZAR P.S. BOKO DIST KAMRUP R ASSAM PIN-781127 ------------ Advocate for : Advocate for : appearing for MR R.U. BARLASKAR and 3 ORS Page No.# 5/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA