This criminal revision petition challenged an order dismissing an enhancement of sentence petition due to uncondoned delay. The High Court acquitted the Principal Sessions Judge, finding the delay reasons unconvincing and granting no interference.
The criminal revision petition stands dismissed.
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 JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 20.06.2016
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM
Crl.R.C.No.561 of 2016
P.N.Manoharan .. Petitioner
Vs. The State rep by the Inspector of Police V5 Thirumangalam Police Station Chennai-101 Cr.No.2512 of 1997 2.P.N.Nagarajan 3.A.Anbarasan 4.S.Prabhu Chandrakumar .. Respondents
Prayer :- Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 07.01.2016 made in Crl.MP.No.7256 of 2015 in Crl.RC.SR.No.28 of 2015 in CC.No.2082 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.
For Petitioner : M/s.R.Muniapparaj For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, GA (Crl.side) for R1.
Mr.V.Kannan for R2. Mr.R.Rajesh Kumar for R3 and R4.
ORDER
The criminal revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.7256 of 2015 in Crl.RC.SR.No.28 of 2015 in CC.No.2082 of 2004 dated 07.01.2016.
2.Heard both sides.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the criminal revision is filed along with a petition to condone the delay of 670days in filing the revision against the order passed by the learned IV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in
C.A.Nos.84 and 88 of 2013 for enhancement of sentence, against the order made in CC.No.2082 of 2004 dated 22.03.2013. Since, there is a delay of 670 days in filing the revision petition, the petitioner has to explain sufficient reasons for delay in filing the revision petition.
4.In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is stated that he was out of India almost for 180 days from May 2013 to November 2013 and 90 days from June 2014 to September 2014. Even according to the petitioner, he received the copy of the judgment only on 01.04.2013 and filed an application under Section 452 CR.PC and the same was returned on 17.11.2014. Subsequently, another application under Section 301(2) Cr.PC was filed on 17.02.2015 and the present petition has been filed only on 29.04.2015. Therefore, the petitioner has not approached the Court immediately to file the revision petition and the reason stated in the affidavit for the delay in filing the petition for nearly two years is not convincing and satisfactory.
5.In view of the above facts and circumstances, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, upon perusing the documents and after analysing the materials placed before the Court, dismissed the petition in Crl.MP.No.7256 of 2015 on 07.01.2015. This court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial court and the same does not warrant any interference by this court.
6.In the result, the criminal revision petition stands dismissed.
tsh Sd/Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
KR/12/7/16
Crl.R.C.No.561 of 2016
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of 670 days in filing the revision petition warrants condonation and disposal on merits.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
P.N. Manoharan
The State rep by the Inspector of Police V5 Thirumangalam Police Station Chennai-101
P.N. Nagarajan
A. Anbarasan
S. Prabhu Chandrakumar
G. Chockalingam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
