Dr. T. N. Singh, J.:- A lifer has challenged his conviction in this appeal preferred from jail raising a basic question. Can this Court put into his basket of rights, judicially secured to his tattered tribe, another vital and pivotal right? Indeed, the right claimed by him is vital and pivotal not only for his freedom from bondage, should this Court hold his confinement to be illegal, but for also other prisoners similarly situate.

2. We propose, therefore, to examine first the basic question which indeed has surfaced in this case in the form of a preliminary objection pressed by learned P. P., Assam, Mr. G. Sarma. He drew our attention to the order passed in this appeal on 15-5-82 by which the appeal was admitted "keeping the question of limitation open." This Court also ordered issue of notice on the question of limitation. Mr. Sarma submitted that the appellant has not responded to the notice and as such the appeal is not ripe for hearing. The main thrust of his contention was that unless there was an application by the appellant u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay and unless this Court after hearing the State on that question had condoned the delay thi