High CourtsDivision Bench

Tshering Thendup Bhutia vs State Of Sikkim

Sikkim High Court · Decided on 25 April 2018 · Citation: (2018) 04 SIK CK 0008

HON’BLE JUDGES
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI C.J, MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI
RESULT
Disposed of
CASE NUMBER
I.A. No.01 of 2018 in Crl.A. No.07 of 2018

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

21 paragraphs · 361 words

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1.

Heard.

2.

The Appellant herein seeks condonation of delay of 47 (forty seven) days in filing the Crl.A. No.07 of 2018, taking exception to the impugned

Judgment dated 09-11-2017 and the Order on Sentence dated 13-11-2017 in Sessions Trial (POCSO) Case No.02 of 2017, passed by the Learned

Special Judge (POCSO), West Sikkim, at Gyalshing.

3.

The grounds enumerated for the delay are that on pronouncement of the Order on Sentence on 13-11-2017, the Appellant was taken into custody at

the State Jail and on 08-12-2017 Legal Aid Counsel Ms. Puja Lamichaney was provided to file an Appeal. Case papers were handed over to her on

the same date, who on perusal, found that some required documents were not available. Consequently, on 09-12-2017, Counsel requested the

Appellant’s earlier Counsel to hand over the case records for comparison in order to update the incomplete records supplied. On 13-12-2017, the

case records were handed over and Learned Counsel travelled to Gangtok on 16-12-2017 to seek instructions from the Appellant. However, on

account of her travel from Gyalshing, West Sikkim to Gangtok, East Sikkim, she suffered severe backache and was able to seek instructions only on

18-12-2018. On receiving instructions, she returned to Gyalshing, where she was diagnosed with cervical spondylosis at the Gyalshing Hospital

following which she had to undergo Physiotherapy for a month thereafter. By 23-02-2018, the Appeal was prepared and on 24-02-2018 the Appeal

was filed before this Court and hence, the delay. That, the grounds are bona fide and delay be condoned.

4.

No serious objection was raised by Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as the delay evidently had occurred on account of the physical ailment of

Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

5.

We are satisfied with the grounds put forth and find that the sufficient cause has been laid out for not preferring the Appeal within the period

prescribed. We are thus inclined to exercise our discretion to advance the cause of substantial justice as no negligence or inaction is found and the

delay was on account of bona fide grounds.

6.

Delay is condoned, Application allowed.

7.

I.A. No.01 of 2018 stands disposed of.