High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 08 MEG CK 1322

Shri. Rangdondor Lyngdoh vs State of Meghalaya

Meghalaya High Court · Decided on 20 August 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
W. Diengdoh, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Crl.M.C. No. 191 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 332 words
1.

Heard Mr. P. Yobin, learned 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 dated 14.05.2026 and related order of sentence dated 15.05.2026 passed by the Court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh in Special (POCSO) Case No. 5 of 2019, whereby, he was convicted and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3(three) years with fine of ₹ 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only, and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment of 1(one) month for an offence punishable under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. The applicant is also convicted to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6(six) months with fine of ₹ 1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment of 15(fifteen) days for an offence punishable under Section 448 IPC.

2.

However, while preferring an appeal, a delay of 35 days has occurred, on the ground that after the said judgment was pronounced, the applicant was lodged in judicial custody, and had no immediate access to legal assistance or financial resources to file an appeal or to engage a counsel. In view of the circumstances which is beyond the control of the applicant, he could not prefer an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, thereby causing such delay. It is therefore prayed that the delay be condoned and the appeal be admitted.

3.

Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State respondent has no objection to 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. Accordingly, the delay of 35 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

5.

Registry is directed to diarize the appeal and list it for admission after 1(one) week.

6.

Misc. Case disposed of.