Allowed¶36

M.Murugan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Nib - Cid

Condonation of delay – Section 5 of the Limitation Act

Madras HC17 Dec 2025CRL MP(MD)/20111/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act; 32 days delay; criminal appeal; NDPS Act Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C); rigorous imprisonment twelve years; fine Rs.1,25,000; Article 21 right to appeal; Mahesh Singh Banzara v State of Madhya Pradesh SLP (Crl) 18045/2024; Dilip S Dahanukar v Kotak Mahindra (2007) 6 SCC 528; financial constraints breadwinner; C.C.No.305 of 2017; Crime No.65 of 2017 NIBCID Theni; District and Sessions Court for Communal Clash Cases Madurai; Madras High Court Madurai Bench.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the 32-day delay in filing the criminal appeal; Registry directed to number the appeal (CRL A(MD) SR. No.83534 of 2025) if otherwise in order and post it for admission. ¶36

M.Murugan Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Condonation of the 32-day delay in filing the criminal appeal; Registry directed to number the appeal (CRL A(MD) SR. No.83534 of 2025) if otherwise in order and post it for admission.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 32 days in filing the criminal appeal against the judgment dated 08.09.2025 in C.C.No.305 of 2017 ought to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶10

Court's answer

The delay of 32 days in filing the criminal appeal is condoned and the condone-delay petition is ordered; the Registry is directed to number the appeal if it is otherwise in order and to post it for admission.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Accepting the affidavit explanation (lack of monetary resources; delay neither wilful nor wanton) and acting in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in Mahesh Singh Banzara, the Court found sufficient cause and gave the petitioner an opportunity to contest the statutory appeal on merits.

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - 32-day delay in filing criminal appeal against judgment dated 08.09.2025 in C.C.No.305 of 2017 convicting the petitioner under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act and sentencing him to twelve years' rigorous imprisonment and Rs.1,25,000/- fine (default 3 years simple imprisonment). Petitioner, sole breadwinner, pleaded lack of monetary resources and inability to engage counsel; delay held neither wilful nor wanton. Following the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 02.01.2025 in Mahesh Singh Banzara v. State of Madhya Pradesh, SLP (Crl.) No.18045/2024, rendered in line with Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd, (2007) 6 SCC 528, where the right to appeal concerning personal liberty was treated as protected under Article 21, the delay was condoned and the petitioner given an opportunity to contest the statutory appeal on merits. Petition ordered; Registry to number the appeal if otherwise in order and post it for admission.

¶1

CRL MP(MD)No.20111 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 17/12/2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA

¶6

CRL MP(MD)No.20111 of 2025 in CRL A(MD) SR. No.83534 of 2025

¶7

M.Murugan ...Petitioner/Appellant/Sole Accused

¶8

¶9

The State of Tamil Nadu rep by The Inspector of Police, NIBCID Theni, Theni District. (In Crime No.65 of 2017) ... Respondent/Respondent/Complainant

¶10

PRAYER: These petitions are filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 32 days in filing the above appeal against the judgment dated 08.09.2025 passed by the District and Sessions Court for Communcal Clash Cases, Madurai, in C.C.No.305 of 2017.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabakaran For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

CRL MP(MD)No.20111 of 2025

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petition has been filed to condone the delay of 32 days in filing

¶17

the above criminal appeal against the judgement dated 08.09.2025, in C.C.No.305 of 2017, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge for Communcal Clash Cases, Madurai.

¶18

2. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,25,000/- in default to undergo 3 years simple imprisonment, for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20[b][ii][C] of NDPS Act.

¶19

3 . The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition stated that he informed the Advocate, who contested the case before the trial court, to prefer the appeal but he did not prefer an appeal before this Court in time. It is further averred that the petitioner is the only breadwinner of his family and his family members had no resources and they could not arrange an Advocate within the time prescribed by law and that the delay

¶20

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

CRL MP(MD)No.20111 of 2025

¶23

was neither wilful nor wanton. Therefore, the delay of 32 days in filing the above appeals may be condoned.

¶24

4 . The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conviction

¶25

has caused severe prejudice, irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioner and that due to financial constraints, the petitioner could not file the appeal in time. Hence, he prayed this Court to condone the delay of 32 days in preferring the appeal.

¶26

5 . Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.

¶27

6 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 02.01.2025, in SLP. [Crl.].No.18045/2024, in the case of Mahesh Singh Banzara Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, following its earlier judgment, in the csae of Dilip S.Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd [2007 [6] SCC 528], held that the right to appeal, particularly, when it concerns the liberty of the individual, is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that the High Court, while dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay, was bound to examine the reasons for the delay. The 3

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

CRL MP(MD)No.20111 of 2025

¶30

Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the said case, condoned the delay of 1637 days

¶31

in filing the appeal by accepting the similar reason of lack of monetary

¶32

resources.

¶33

7 . The petitioner herein, has also stated that he did not have the requisite monetary consideration and so was not able to file the appeal in time.

¶34

8 . Being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit and in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 32 days and to give an opportunity to the

¶35

petitioner to contest the statutory appeal on merits.

¶36

9. Accordingly, the delay of 32 days in filing the criminal appeal is condoned and the petition is ordered. The Registry is directed to number the appeal if it is otherwise in order and post it for admission.

¶37

17.12.2025

¶38

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

CRL MP(MD)No.20111 of 2025

N.MALA,J