Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Crl.)/27/2026 of Smt. Priscilla Biaklenmawii Vs The State of Mizoram and Anr. on 17 May 2026
GAHC030003202026 THE GAUHATI
GAHC030003202026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/27/2026
Smt. Priscilla Biaklenmawii
D/o Nunkam(L), R/o Falam, Myanmar
VERSUS
The State of Mizoram and Anr.
R/b the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Excise and Narcotics Department, Aizawl2:The Officer-inCharg Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Joseph Lalchhanhima Renthlei Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
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
Date : 18.05.2026 Heard Ms. Rosy Manlawmsangi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent.
2. By way of the present interlocutory application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant seeks condonation of a delay of 27 days in preferring the connected criminal appeal.
3. It appears that some delay occurred in filing the statutory criminal appeal owing to the applicant’s financial constraints and the practical difficulties faced while in custody. The present application has accordingly been filed seeking condonation of the said delay.
4. The applicant has, inter alia, stated that following her conviction, she had requested her relatives to take necessary steps for filing an appeal against the impugned judgment and order. However, despite repeated requests, no effective steps were taken on her behalf. Being incarcerated and without financial means to arrange legal assistance independently, the applicant was left in a position of helplessness.
5. It is further stated that the applicant thereafter attempted to secure assistance through friends outside the prison, but no meaningful support was forthcoming. Given the practical limitations arising from incarceration, she was compelled, with the assistance of fellow inmates, to contact counsel and initiate steps for obtaining certified copies of the relevant records. The application for certified copies was submitted on 25.02.2026, and the copies were made available on 12.03.2026.
6. Subsequently, the engaged counsel required some time to examine the records and prepare the memorandum of appeal. It is also stated that an attempt was made to file the appeal on 08.05.2026; however, the filing could not be completed as the concerned filing staff had reportedly left early due to official exigencies. The intervening weekend, followed by a power outage affecting printing and final preparation of documents, further contributed to the delay.
7. Ms. Rosy Manlawmsangi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to negligence, but occasioned by circumstances beyond the applicant’s control.
8. Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent, fairly submits that she has received no instructions to oppose the prayer for condonation.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials placed on record, this Court is satisfied that the explanation furnished for the delay is bona fide and constitutes sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
10. Considering the circumstances, particularly the applicant’s incarceration, financial inability, and the procedural constraints narrated above, this Court finds it appropriate to adopt a liberal approach in the interest of substantial justice.
11. Accordingly, the delay of 27 days in filing the connected criminal appeal stands condoned.
12. Consequently, the interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant