The High Court of Kerala dismissed two criminal revision petitions challenging the dismissal of an application to condone a delay of 478 days in filing an appeal. The court found the petitioner offered no explanation for the delay and dismissed the petitions.
The revision petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1941
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.352 of 2018
CRA 88/2017 of SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA DATED 24-11-2017
CC 1643/2015 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, THODUPUZHA
CRIME NO.356/2007 OF Kanjad Police Station, Idukki
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
SCARIA,
S/O.DEVASSIA, AGED 64 YEARS, PARAMUNDAYIL HOUSE, MELATTOOR.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED:
S/O.DEVASIA, PARAMUNDAYIL HOUSE, OLAMATTOM BHAGAM, OLAMATTTOM KARA, MRALA.P.O, THODUPUZHA, KARIKODU VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685587.
3 THOMAS P.D., S/O.KURUVILA DEVASIA, PARAMUNDAYIL HOUSE, BELLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671531.
4 BITTO SEBASTIAN,
S/O.SEBASTIAN, PARAMUNDAYIL HOUSE, OLAMATTOM BHAGOM, OLAMATTTOM KARA, KARIKODU VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685587.
Crl.Rev.Pet.352 & 390/18
2
5 CELIN, W/O.SEBASTIAN, PARAMUNDAYIL HOUSE, OLAMATTOM BHAGOM, OLAMATTTOM KARA, KARIKODU VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685587.
R1 BY B. JAYASURYA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2, R3 & R5 BY ADVS. SRI.JOJU KYNADY SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.06.2019, ALONG WITH CRL.R.P.NO.390/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.352 & 390/18
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1941
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.390 of 2018
CRL.M.P.2646/2017 IN CRA 88/2017 of SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA
CC 1643/2015 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, THODUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
SCARIA, S/O.DEVASSIA, AGED 64 YEARS, PARAMUNDAYIL HOUSE, MELATTOOR.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED:
Crl.Rev.Pet.352 & 390/18
4
6 CELIN, W/O. SEBASTIAN, PARAMUNDAYIL HOUSE, OLAMATTOM BHAGOM, OLMATTOM KARA, KARIKODU VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685587.
R1 BY SRI B.JAYASURYA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R3 & R6 BY ADVS. JOJU KYNADY SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.06.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.352/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.352 & 390/18
5
ORDER
These revision petitions are preferred against the order dated 24.11.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha, as per which, an application filed by the petitioner herein seeking to condone the delay of 478 days in preferring the appeal challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate, Thodupuzha, was dismissed.
revision petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
Crl.Rev.Pet.352 & 390/18
6
on 15.07.2016 and liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge the judgment by preferring an appeal. The copy of the said order was received by his counsel only on 27.08.2016. It is
the case of the petitioner that he came to know about the dismissal of the revision petition only on 10.03.2017, when he inquired about the same to his counsel. According to the learned counsel, there is no willful laches on his part and this is one matter, which has to be adjudicated on its merits rather than be dismissed on the ground of delay.
Crl.Rev.Pet.352 & 390/18
7
for condoning the delay.
Crl.Rev.Pet.352 & 390/18
8
alone a sufficient explanation has been offered for the delay which has occasioned. Only in those exceptional cases, where there is a glaring defect in the procedure or a manifest error on any point of
law and consequent failure of justice that the revision petitions can be entertained. I am afraid that the petitioner has not able to satisfy that any of such eventualities have arisen in these cases warranting interference in revision.
These revision petitions will stand dismissed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE
DSV/15.6.19
//TRUE COPY// PA. TO JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether sufficient cause was made out by the petitioner to condone a delay of over 450 days in filing an appeal to the Sessions Court after the dismissal of a revision petition.
Whether the delay in preferring the appeal was justified by the petitioner's explanation.
Whether the Single Sessions Judge correctly dismissed the application for condonation of delay in the appeal.
Scaria
State of Kerala
Sebastian
Thomas P.D.
Bitto Sebastian
Celin
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
