RAJESH LAMIN v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA
Court: High Court of Meghalaya
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE W. DIENGDOH,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. BHATTACHARJEE
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Meghalaya judgment dated 2026-02-09. RAJESH LAMIN v. STATE OF MEGHALAYA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
Serial No. 03 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl. M. C. No. 8 of 2026 Date of Decision: 09. 02. 2026 Shri. Rajesh Lamin, S/o (L) Samel Dkhar, R/o Lejri, Umkiang, East Jaintia Hills District, P. S Lumshnong, Meghalaya. Presently serving sentence in District Prison & Correctional Home, Jowai, Meghalaya. ……….. Applicant -Vs- State of Meghalaya through Superintendent of Police, East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya. ………… Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Ms. S. Nongsiej, Legal Aid Counsel. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Kharmih, Addl. PP. Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl. PP. i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc. : ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes/No Per W. Diengdoh, (J): JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) 1. Heard Ms. S.
Nongsiej, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant, who has submitted that the applicant has filed an appeal before this Court, assailing the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 04. 12. 2024 passed by the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat in Special POCSO Case No. 23 of 2020 under Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, wherein he was directed to undergo imprisonment for a term of 15 years with fine. 2. However, because the applicant is a laborer, and his family could not afford to appoint a private counsel, therefore, legal aid was sought for, and accordingly, this application was process through Legal Aid Counsel. 3. In the meantime, while preferring an appeal, a delay of 368 days has occurred, for which prayer is made that the delay be condoned and the appeal be admitted. 4. Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State respondent has no objection to the prayer made. 5.
On consideration of the submission made, we are persuaded to allow the appeal to be heard on merits, and for that, we are also convinced that the grounds cited for the delay contain sufficient cause. Accordingly, the delay of 368 days in preferring the related 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. (B. Bhattacharjee) (W. Diengdoh) Judge Judge Signature Not Verified 3 Digitally signed by DARIKORDOR NARY Date: 2026. 02. 09 17:29:36 IST
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.