Court No.2

HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM

Record of Proceedings

Page 1 of 2

I.A. No. 01 of 2025 in Crl. A./24/2025(Filing No.)

Rajesh Manger Applicant

VERSUS

State of Sikkim Respondent

Date : 24-09-2025

CORAM : THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE

For Applicant Mr. N. Rai, Senior Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel).

Mr. Yozan Rai, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel).

For Respondent Mr. S. K. Chettri, Additional Public Prosecutor.

ORDER

Rai, J.

I.A. No.01 of 2025 is an application filed by the

Applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963,

seeking condonation of 426 days’ delay in filing the instant

Appeal.

Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant has admitted

that it was on account of in advertent negligence in his

Chambers that although the File was received by his

Chambers on 01 -04-2024 from the Sikkim State Legal

Services Authority (SLSA), however the Counsel who

received the File, kept the File amongst other Files and totally

forgot about it. That, it came to light that the Appeal had not

been filed only when the Applicant contacted the Counsel

through the Jail Authorities and enquired about the progress

of the case. In the circumstance, as the error and delay is

not on account of the Applicant who ought not to suffer for

the aforestated reasons the same may be condoned.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor objected to the

Petition on grounds that the impugned Judgment was

pronounced on 07-03-2024 and the File was made over to

the Counsel for the Applicant by Sikkim SLSA on 01-04-2024,

despite which the Appeal has been filed on 03 -06-2025,

without showing sufficient cause for the delay to be

condoned.

Court No.2

HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM

Record of Proceedings

Page 2 of 2

We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. We

are aware that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, requires

‘sufficient cause’ to be explained for the delay. The delay

admittedly is not on account of the Applicant’s failure to take

timely steps but is on account of the forgetfulness of the

Counsel in the Chambers of Learned Senior Counsel. In our

considered opinion, the Applicant ought not to suffer for the

negligence of the Counsel who has honestly admitted to the

error. In any event, the delay has been explained with

‘sufficient cause’ and we are inclined to and do condone the

delay.

I.A. No. 01 of 2025 stands disposed of.

Register the Appeal.

Heard Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant who is

aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 07 -03-2024, of

the Court of the Special Judge (POCSO Act , 2012), at

Gangtok, Sikkim, in ST (POCSO) Case No.01 of 2021, vide

which the Appellant was convicted for the offences under

Section 3(a) punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under Section 7

punishable under Section 8 of the said Act and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years’

and to pay a fine of ₹ 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only,

each, under each of the sections, with default stipulations.

Admit the Appeal.

Call for the records from the Learned Trial Court.

Let Paper-Books be prepared.

List on 24-11-2025.

Judge Judge

24-09-2025 24-09-2025

ds/bp/sdl