Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Crl.)/1295/2025 of SRI BIMAL ALIAS SHANKAR BAROI Vs MR BRAJESH TUSNIAL on 13 September 2026
GAHC010267992025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1295/2025 SRI BIMAL ALIAS SHANKAR BAROI SON OF SWAPAN BAROI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ALEXANDARPUR, P.O. AND P.S. KATLICHERRA, PIN-788161, DISTRICTHAILAKANDI, ASSAM.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010267992025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1295/2025
SRI BIMAL ALIAS SHANKAR BAROI
SON OF SWAPAN BAROI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ALEXANDARPUR, P.O.
AND P.S. KATLICHERRA, PIN-788161, DISTRICTHAILAKANDI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
MR BRAJESH TUSNIAL
SON OF SHYAM LAL TUSNIAL, PARTNER OF CENTURY TRADE AND
INDUSTRY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGEAND P.O. ADARPURGHAT, P.S.
PANCHGRAM, PIN788803, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N SHARMA, B K SINGHA
Advocate for the Respondent : ,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
14.09.2026 Mr. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per office note dated 10.09.2026 the AD card has been received back from the sole respondent with signature of one Deepak Mozumdar and upon perusing the same, I find that it was sent to the address of the respondent mentioned in the cause title.
2. The IA is for the purpose of condoning the delay of 55 days in preferring the criminal revision against the concurrent findings of guilt by the trial court and appellate court in a proceeding under Section 138 of the NI Act. The trial court Page No.# 2/2 judgment is dated 20.02.2024, passed by Learned CJM, Silchar and the concurring appellate judgment was passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar in Criminal Appeal 29/2024.
3. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6, wherein the grounds of delay have been tried to be explained. On perusing the same, I find that the applicant has largely contended about the serious ailment of his wife due to which he went for treatment outside the state. The applicable limitations period for filing a revision is 90 days.
4. Considering the quantum of delay, the explanations put forth and also the fact that the matter pertains to conviction — the delay of 55 days in preferring the criminal revision is hereby condoned.
5. Accordingly, the I.A. stands allowed and disposed of
6. Registry to register the number and list the same for admission.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant