Meghalaya High Court
Crl.M.C./108/2024 of EMANUEL MARWEIN Vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA on 16 October 2024
Supplementary List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl.M.C. No. 108 of 2024 Date of Order: 16.10.2024 Shri. Emanuel Marwein, Son of Shri. Constantine Lyngdoh Marshiangbai, Resident of Sohparu Village, West Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya Presently at Shillong District Prison and Correctional
Serial No. 01 Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYAAT SHILLONG
Crl.M.C. No. 108 of 2024
Date of Order: 16.10.2024
Shri. Emanuel Marwein,Son of Shri. Constantine LyngdohMarshiangbai,Resident of Sohparu Village,West Khasi Hills District, MeghalayaPresently at Shillong District Prison andCorrectional Home, Shillong,East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya :::::Petitioner/Appellant -Vs- The State of Meghalaya through theSecretary Home (Police) Department,Shillong, Meghalaya :::::Respondent
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Applicant(s): Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, Adv.Ms. R. Fancon, Adv.For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl. PP.Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, GA.
i) Whether approved for reporting in
Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication in press:
Yes/No
ORAL:
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.
1. Heard Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, learned counsel for thepetitioner/appellant, who has submitted that the petitioner/appellant hasfiled an appeal before this Court challenging his conviction videjudgment and order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the learned SpecialJudge, POCSO, Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills District in Special(POCSO) Case No. 25 of 2018 and the sentencing order dated12.10.2022. However, in the process of preferring the related appeal, adelay of 673 days has occurred, the reason being the financialincapability of the appellant and his family members and also the non-availability of the complete requisite documents which has prevent thepetitioner/appellant to prefer the appeal in time. It is therefore prayed thatthis application for condonation of delay be allowed and the appeal beadmitted.
2. Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl. PP appearing for the Staterespondent has no objection to the prayer made, but has howeversubmitted that the order of conviction relates to a sentence of 10 years, and as such, the petitioner/appellant may be allowed to defend his case.
3. This Court on consideration of the submission made isconcerned about the length of delay in filing the related appeal, thereasons cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant does notsound convincing since it is incumbent upon him to be aware of thesituation and to take necessary steps diligently. However, this Court isalso conscious of the fact that an appeal against conviction is a matter tobe taken seriously since it concern the personal liberty of aperson/convict. Accordingly, taking everything into considerationincluding the response of the State respondent, the prayer forcondonation of delay of 673 days is allowed.
4. Misc. Case stands disposed of.5.Registry is directed to diarize the appeal and list it foradmission after 1(one) week.
(B. Bhattacharjee)
(W. Diengdoh)
Judge Judge