Mohammed Niyazullah Vs The State Rep By, The Sub-Inspector Of Police — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Mohammed Niyazullah Vs The State Rep By, The Sub-Inspector Of Police — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Condonation of the 309-day delay in filing the criminal appeal; the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is ordered and the Registry is directed to number the Criminal Appeal, if it is otherwise in order, and post the same for Admission.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 309 days in filing the present appeal (under Section 5 of Limitation Act), brought by the petitioner/PW2 claiming to be a victim against the acquittal of the 2nd respondent, should be condoned. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the victim had filed the appeal, the delay of 309 days is condoned; the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly ordered.

Key takeaways

This Court expressly declined to go into the merits of the appeal (including the respondents' maintainability contention) at the condonation stage, leaving those contentions to be considered at the time of admission of the appeal.obiter¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Nirmal Kumar, J.), in CRL MP No. 6592 of 2026 in Crl A SR No. 40117 of 2024 (order dated 09-07-2026), condoned a delay of 309 days under Section 5 of Limitation Act in a criminal appeal filed by the petitioner — described as the petitioner/PW2 claiming to be a victim (FIR No.31 of 2019) — against the acquittal of the 2nd respondent passed in CA.No.28 of 2023 dated 28.07.2023 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Villupuram, which appellate court had reversed the trial Court's conviction of the 2nd respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 objected that the delay could not be condoned mechanically absent day-wise reasons, and that the appeal, arraying the 2nd respondent along with the 3rd respondent (whose acquittal by the trial Court had attained finality, the petitioner having filed no appeal against it), was not maintainable; the Court did not examine these contentions or the merits at this stage, deferring them to admission. Because the appeal had been filed by the victim, the delay was condoned and the miscellaneous petition was ordered; the Registry was directed to number the Criminal Appeal, if otherwise in order, and post it for Admission.

CRL MP No. 6592 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-07-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

CRL MP No. 6592 of 2026 IN CRL A SR NO. 40117 OF 2024

Mohammed Niyazullah S/o Abdul Lathif, Elavanchurkottai, Ulundurpet. FIR No.31 of 2019

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

The State Rep By, The Sub-Inspector Of Police District Crime Branch, Villupuram.

Shaikh Mushtaq S/o Shahid Ameer, Residing at Melapalayam, Elavanchurkottai, Ulundurpet.

Syed Hameed S/o Syed Pakshee, Residing at Melapalayam, Elavanchurkottai, Ulundurpet.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 309 days in filing the present appeal before this Court, against the acquittal of 2^nd respondent, passed in CA.No.28 of 2023 dated 28.07.2023 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Villupuram.

__________ Page1 of 4

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

CRL MP No. 6592 of 2026

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar For Respondent-1: Mrs.Sharada Vivek, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Respondents-2 & 3: Mr.M.Himavanth

Order

The petitioner/PW2, claiming to be a victim, had filed the appeal with a

delay of 309 days.

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner.

The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 filed his objections and submitted that the delay of 309 days cannot be condoned mechanically unless the petitioner is able to give reason for each day’s delay. He further submitted that in this case the third respondent was acquitted by the trial Court, whereas the second respondent was convicted by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the conviction, the second respondent filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Villupuram. The learned Additional District Judge, Villupuram reversed the finding of the trial Court and acquitted the second respondent, against which, the present appeal is filed. He further submitted that the petitioner not filed any appeal against the acquittal of the third respondent by the trial Court and his acquittal attained finality. At this stage, filing an appeal arraying the second respondent along with third respondent and questioning the judgment of the trial Court is not maintainable.

Page2 of 4

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

CRL MP No. 6592 of 2026

The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 is ready for arguments

in the main appeal. This Court is not going into the merits of the appeal at this stage. The contentions of the respondents 2 and 3 can be considered at the time

of admission of the appeal. Since the victim had filed the appeal, the delay is condoned.

Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is ordered.

09-07-2026

rsi

Note: Registry is directed to number the Criminal Appeal, if it is otherwise in order and post the same for Admission.

__________ Page3 of 4

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

CRL MP No. 6592 of 2026

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J.

RSI

CRL MP No. 6592 of 2026 IN CRL A SR NO. 40117 OF 2024

09-07-2026

__________ Page4 of 4

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