Dismissed¶41

State Represented by Additional Superintendent Of Police v. M.Sathishkumar

Madras HC13 Feb 2026CRL MP/2448/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condone delay; 63 days delay; criminal appeal against acquittal; Section 378(5) Cr.P.C. six months public servant; Section 5 Limitation Act; CBI appeal against acquittal; Wild Life Protection Act violation; Crime No.WLOR No.13 of 2022; Special Investigating Team; W.P(MD) No.19771 of 2018 Special Bench directions; C.C.No. 669 of 2023 Chief Judicial Magistrate Chengalpattu; acquittal judgment 19.06.2025; certified copy delivered 24.07.2025; appeal filed 11.12.2025; no requirement to condone delay; CMP dismissed; Registry number leave petition; Madras High Court; Justice M. Nirmal Kumar.

What did the court decide?

No condonation required; the appeal having been found filed within the six-month period under Section 378(5) of Cr.P.C., the Registry is directed to number the leave petition if otherwise in order. ¶41

State Represented by Additional Superintendent Of Police Vs M.Sathishkumar — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No condonation required; the appeal having been found filed within the six-month period under Section 378(5) of Cr.P.C., the Registry is directed to number the leave petition if otherwise in order.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 63 days in filing the Criminal Appeal against the judgment of acquittal should be condoned. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

As the appeal falls within the statutory period, there is no requirement to file a condone delay petition.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Per the Court-seal record, the copy application was filed on 18.07.2025, the certified copy was delivered on 24.07.2025 and the appeal was filed before this Court on 11.12.2025; the appeal is therefore well within the six-month period under Section 378(5) of Cr.P.C.

¶39

Key takeaways

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.ratio¶41
Registry is directed to number the leave petition (the accompanied criminal appeal), if it is otherwise in order.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Nirmal Kumar, J.), CRL MP No. 2448 of 2026 in CRL A SR No. 95398 of 2025, decided 13-02-2026. The CBI (through the Additional Superintendent of Police, Special Task Branch, Chennai) sought condonation of a 63-day delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing a criminal appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 19.06.2025 in C.C.No. 669 of 2023 (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu), discharging respondents M.Sathishkumar, M.Jayakumar and A.Ravichandran. The underlying case concerned violation of the Wild Life Protection Act (Crime No.WLOR No.13 of 2022 dated 13.12.2021), investigated by a Special Investigating Team including CBI officers pursuant to the orders of the Special Bench of this Court in W.P(MD) No.19771 of 2018 dated 10.06.2022; trial particulars: 13 prosecution witnesses, 28 documents, M.O.1-M.O.7; defence DW1-DW3, Exs.D1-D8. Holding: on the Court-seal record the copy application was filed on 18.07.2025, the certified copy was delivered on 24.07.2025 and the appeal was filed on 11.12.2025, i.e. well within the six-month limit fixed by Section 378(5) of Cr.P.C. for appeals against acquittal by public servants; consequently there was 'no requirement to file condone delay petition', the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed, and the Registry was directed to number the leave petition if otherwise in order. (The Special Public Prosecutor had contended the appeal was filed on 20.11.2025; the Court relied on its own computation of 11.12.2025.)

¶1

CRL MP No. 2448 of 2026

¶2

in CRL A SR NO. 95398 OF 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 13-02-2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

¶7

CRL MP No. 2448 of 2026 in CRL A SR NO. 95398 OF 2025

¶8

State Represented by Additional Superintendent Of Police Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Task Branch, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090.

¶9

Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

M.Sathishkumar

¶12

S/o.Maninathan, No.5, Ponniamman Nagar, 1st Stret, Venkatamangalam, Kandigai, Chengalpattu.

¶13

2.M.Jayakumar S/o.Mohan, No. 45/10, Thirumalai Nagar, Nandambakkam, Kundrathur, Chennai.

¶14

3.A.Ravichandran

¶15

S/o.Annamalai, No.20-A, Dam Road, Ramanathapuram, Padavedu, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶16

Respondent(s)/Accused

¶17

CRL A SR No. 95398 of 2025

¶18

1. The State Rep By

¶19

1/5

¶20

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

¶21

CRL MP No. 2448 of 2026 in CRL A SR NO. 95398 OF 2025

Appellant(s)

1. M.Sathishkumar

Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 63 days in filing the Criminal Appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 19.06.2025 passed in C.C.No. 669 of 2023 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice and the accompanied appeal be heard and decided on merits.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Srinivasan, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases

¶28

For Respondent :

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by CBI seeking to condone the delay of 63 days in filing the above appeal.

¶31

2.The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner/CBI submitted that for violation of Wild Life Protection Act, a complaint filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police, SCB, Chennai, pursuant to the orders passed by the Special Bench of this Court in W.P(MD) No.19771 of 2018 dated 10.06.2022 and the same is taken on file in

¶32

2/5

¶33

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

¶34

CRL MP No. 2448 of 2026 in CRL A SR NO. 95398 OF 2025 C.C.No.669 of 2023. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint, discharging the respondents, against which, the present appeal filed with a delay of 63 days.

¶35

3.He further submitted that this case was investigated by Special Investigating team which consist of officials of Wild Life, CBI and others. The CBI had taken up the complaint, investigated and filed final report. As per Section 378(5) of Cr.P.C., the time limit for a public servant to file an appeal against acquittal is six months. In this case, the judgment of acquittal delivered on 19.06.2025 and the appeal filed on 20.11.2025 well within the period of six months. Hence, there is no delay.

¶36

4.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material, it is seen that admittedly in this case on the directions of the Special Bench of this Court, the case in Crime No.WLOR No.13 of 2022 dated 13.12.2021 handed over to the Special Investigating Team and CBI officers are part of the investigation team, who conducted investigation and the case was taken on file, thereafter judgment of acquittal rendered. During trial, on the side of prosecution, 13 witnesses examined, 28 documents marked and M.O.1 to M.O.7 produced. On the side of the defence, DW1 to DW3 examined and

¶37

3/5

¶38

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

¶39

CRL MP No. 2448 of 2026 in CRL A SR NO. 95398 OF 2025 Exs.D1 to D8 marked. It is seen that from the Court seal, the copy application filed on 18.07.2025, the same made ready on 24.07.2025 and order copy delivered on 24.07.2025 and appeal filed before this Court on 11.12.2025. Thus, it is well within the period of six months.

¶40