This petition sought to condone a 269-day delay in filing a criminal revision appeal. The court accepted the submitted reasons for the delay, particularly the procedural hurdles, and held the delay to be reasonable, thereby condoning it.
The delay of 269 days in filing the petition is condoned and the petition is allowed to proceed.
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.
Crl.M.P.No.10452 of 2023 in Crl.A.SR.No.33395 of 2023
Crl.M.P.No.10452 of 2023
M. NIRMAL KUMAR , J.
This petition is filed to condone the delay of 269 days in filing the above appeal.
2.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner/State submitted that the Lower Court convicted the respondent in C.C.No.22 of 2018. Thereafter, on appeal, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal setting aside the conviction of the trial Court, against which, the present revision has been filed with a delay of 269 days, which is purely administrative
in nature.
3.The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the same by relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of State, rep. by Inspector of Police vs. A.Ramakrishnan reported in 2022 (1) MWN (Cr.) 588 and stressed his submission based on paragraph 9 of the judgment.
1/2
Crl.M.P.No.10452 of 2023
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi
4.The affidavit of the petitioner gives the reason for the delay and the procedural impediment in processing the file, getting orders and approval from various authorities. This delay appears to be reasonable. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay stands condoned and the petition is ordered.
12.12.2023
rsi
Note: Registry is directed to number the Criminal Appeal, if it is otherwise in order.
Crl.M.P.No.10452 of 2023 in Crl.A.SR.No.33395 of 2023
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the criminal appeal is sufficient grounds to condone.
Whether administrative proceedings constitute a sufficient cause for filing a belated revision petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State v. A.RamakrishnanReferred¶7
State, rep. by Inspector of Police vs. A.Ramakrishnan reported in 2022 (1) MWN (Cr.) 588
M. NIRMAL KUMAR
STATE/RESPONDENT
M. NIRMAL KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
