Dismissed

Jayalakshmi.K v. R.Sivakumar

Madras HC9 Jan 2019CRL RC/38/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Madras High Court dismissed a Criminal Revision petition against an order rejecting a plea for condonation of 421 days delay in filing a Criminal Appeal. The lower court held no acceptable reason existed for the delay. The High Court found no infirmity in that conclusion.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Jayalakshmi.K Vs R.Sivakumar — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 09.01.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶5

CRL.R.C.NO.38 OF 2019

¶6

Jayalakshmi.K ...Petitioner

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

R.Sivakumar ...Respondent

¶9

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 27.09.2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1048 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathish Kumar

¶11

The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1048 of 2018 dated 27.09.2018 in unnumbered Criminal Appeal by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, rejecting the petition seeking condonation of delay of 421 days in filing the Criminal Appeal.

¶12

2.The lower Appellate Court dismissed the petition seeking condonation of delay stating that no acceptable reason has been set forth in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition. The lower Appellate Court reasoned that except stating that the case bundles was mixed up with the old bundles in the counsel's office, no other reason has been stated in the affidavit. When, a huge delay is sought to be condoned, there must be proper reasons to be stated in the affidavit for the Court to appreciate the same and condone the delay.

¶13

3.In the instant case, it appears that no efforts have been taken on behalf of the petitioner to explain the delay effectively and therefore the lower Appellate Court has rightly rejected the same. Moreover, the lower appellate Court has also traversed the merits of the case, wherein a private complaint was filed case by the petitioner against the respondent and two others and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.12 of 2009 and as against this respondent, cognizance was taken under Section

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

406 of IPC and after conclusion of the trial the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani has acquitted the respondent on 28.04.2017.

¶16

5.In the said circumstances, the delay of 421 days was found to be extraordinary and unless there was proper explanation, the lower Appellate Court felt it was not right to entertain the delay petition.

¶17

6.This Court does not find anything wrong with the order and finds no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the lower Appellate Court and hence, the present Criminal Revision is dismissed.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rna/cgi
To
The Principal Sessions Judge,
Erode.
+1cc to Mr.R.Thirumoorthy, Advocate, S.R.No.2420
Crl.R.C.No.38 of 2019
PA(CO)
CS/18/02/2019

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Jayalakshmi.K v. R.Sivakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayalakshmi.K v. R.Sivakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemalatha Vs Jithesh

Hemalatha Vs Jithesh

A. Aswini, Vs C. Shobana

Sankar Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

Ranjith Vs the Executive Magistrate Cum

Senthamil Selvi Vs State by