PRANESH CHANDRA ROY CHAKRABORTY v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA
Court: High Court of Meghalaya
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE W. DIENGDOH
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Meghalaya judgment dated 2026-03-27. PRANESH CHANDRA ROY CHAKRABORTY v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Serial No. 05 Supplementary List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl. M. C. No. 45 of 2026 Date of Decision: 27. 03. 2026 Shri Pranesh Chandra Roy Chakraborty, Son of (L) KR R Chakraborty, (Convict presently serving sentence at District Jail, Tura), Resident of Dobasipara Dobakkol, West Garo Hills District, Tura, Meghalaya. …….. Applicant/Petitioner - Vs- State of Meghalaya through the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Department of Home (Police), Civil Secretariat, Shillong. ……… Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Chanda, Adv. Mr. S. Khyriem, Adv. vice Ms. R. Dutta, Legal Aid Counsel. For the Respondent(s) : Ms. A. D. Syiem, GA. i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc. : ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes/No JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) 1. Heard Mr. S. Chanda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. R.
Dutta, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant, who has submitted that the applicant has filed an appeal before this Court, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order dated 08. 06. 2023 passed by the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), West Garo Hills, Tura in Special POCSO Case No. 24 of 2021 under Section 9(m)/10 of the POCSO Act. 2. However, while preferring an appeal, a delay of 953 days has occurred, due to circumstances which is beyond the control of the applicant, inasmuch as, there was no support from his family members/relatives, as such, he could not prefer an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Thereafter, a Legal Aid Counsel was provided to him, and eventually, the appeal was prepared by the Legal Aid Counsel. It is therefore prayed that the delay be condoned and the appeal be admitted. 3. Ms. A. D.
Syiem, learned GA appearing for the State respondent has submitted that there is no sufficient cause shown to sustain the prayer for condonation of the delay. 4. On consideration of the submission made, this Court is inclined to allow this application on being satisfied that the grounds cited for the delay contain sufficient cause, notwithstanding the submission of the learned GA. 5. Accordingly, the delay of 953 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. 6. Registry is directed to diarize the appeal and list it for admission after 1(one) week. 7. Misc. Case disposed of. Judge Signature Not Verified 3 Digitally signed by DARIKORDOR NARY Date: 2026. 03. 27 16:39:27 IST
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.