I.A.(Crl.)/54/2026 of Sh. Lalnunsiama Vs The State of Mizoram on 10 September 2026

ORDER

11.09.2026 Heard Mr. L. Pautu, learned Legal Aid counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. By way of this interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 54 days in filing the connected criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.04.2026 and order of sentence dated 12.05.2026

passed by the Special Judge, ND&PS Act, 1985 in Session Registration No. 61/2024 arising out of Excise Case No. N-25/2024 dated 06.02.2024 under Section 21(c) of the ND&PS Act, 1985.

3. The applicant being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, filed the connected criminal appeal, however, there being a delay of 54 days in filing the same, the instant interlocutory application has been filed.

4. The applicant submits that, being incarcerated and having limited financial means, he initially sought legal aid from jail on 09.06.2026, but was required to submit a fresh application, which was ultimately approved on 27.07.2026 and the present counsel was appointed. Thereafter, the counsel obtained the certified copies of the impugned judgment and sentence order on 07.08.2026, and required time to peruse the voluminous trial records and prepare the appeal. The counsel was also constrained to avail unforeseen leave from 17.08.2026 to 21.08.2026 on account of an injury. The Memo of Appeal was ultimately completed on 26.08.2026. It is, therefore, submitted that the delay occurred due to the process of obtaining legal aid, preparation of the appeal and circumstances beyond the applicant’s control, and was neither intentional nor deliberate.

5. Mr. Pautu, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate, but has occurred on account of circumstances beyond the control of the applicant. It is accordingly submitted that the applicant has shown sufficient cause warranting condonation of the delay.

6. Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor, in her usual fairness, submits that she has received no instruction to oppose the prayer for condonation of delay.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, more particularly, the grounds urged in support of the prayer for condonation of delay, this Court finds that the applicant had taken steps from the jail itself to prefer the appeal and had initially sought legal aid on 09.06.2026. The subsequent process of seeking and obtaining legal aid, appointment of counsel, obtaining the certified copies of the relevant orders and perusal of the trial Court records has consumed considerable time. The record further discloses that the appeal was thereafter prepared with due diligence, though the counsel was also required to remain on unforeseen leave for a brief period on account of injury.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the delay cannot be attributed to any deliberate inaction, negligence or want of bona fides on the part of the applicant. The explanation furnished for the delay appears to be reasonable and bona fide and constitutes sufficient cause for the delay occasioned in preferring the appeal.

9. Accordingly, the delay of 54 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

10. The instant interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant