Ayyappan Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps-Theni — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ayyappan Vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Awps-Theni — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Condonation of the delay of 915 days in filing the criminal appeal (CRL A(MD)SR.No.3933/2026), enabling the petitioner to contest the appeal on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 915 days in filing the criminal appeal against the judgement dated 28.02.2023 in Spl.SC.No.115/2021 should be condoned. +1 more

Court's answer

Being satisfied with the reasons stated in the petitioner's affidavit, and in the light of the relied-upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Mahesh Singh Banzara, following Dilip S. Dahanukar), this Court was inclined to condone the 915-day delay, giving the petitioner an opportunity to contest the statutory appeal on merits.

Ratio / Principle

The delay of 915 days in filing the criminal appeal is condoned and the condonation petition is ordered.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Mala, J.), 19.02.2026 - Condonation of delay. The Court condoned a 915-day delay in filing criminal appeal CRL A(MD)SR.No.3933/2026 against the judgement dated 28.02.2023 in Spl.SC.No.115/2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under POCSO Act. Accepting the petitioner's affidavit explanations - poverty, earning Rs.3000/- through the Prison industry to engage a counsel, and misplacement of the judgment copy necessitating a certified copy through an Advocate at Tirunelveli - the Court found the delay neither wilful nor wanton. It acted in the light of the Supreme Court's order dated 02.01.2025 in SLP.(Crl.)No.18045/2024, Mahesh Singh Banzara Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, which - following Dilip S. Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd [2007 (6) SCC 528] - treated the right to appeal, where the liberty of the individual is concerned, as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and had condoned a comparable 1637-day delay arising from lack of monetary resources. The petitioner was given an opportunity to contest the statutory appeal on merits; the petition was ordered.

CRL MP(MD)No.2023/2026 in CRL A(MD)SR.No.3933/2026

CRL MP(MD)No.2023/2026

N.MALA, J.

This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 915 days in filing the above criminal appeal against the judgement dated 28.02.2023, in Spl.SC.No.115/2021, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under POCSO Act,

2.The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition averred that he belongs to a poor family and with great difficulty, he earned a sum of Rs.3000/- through the Prison industry for engaging a counsel The petitioner further states that he misplaced the impugned judgment copy and therefore, he engaged an Advocate at Tirunelveli and obtained the certified copy of the judgment. The petitioner states that due to the aforesaid reasons, there was a delay of 915 days in preferring the appeal and it was neither wilful nor wanton, and hence, prayed for condonation of the delay of 915 days.

3.The respondent filed a counter stating that the petitioner had miserably failed to establish any sufficient cause for condoning the

1

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

CRL MP(MD)No.2023/2026

inordinate delay of 915 days. The respondent further stated that only to protract the proceedings and to evade punishment, the petition was filed and

that, the delay is wholly attributable to the petitioner. The respondent therefore stated that if the petition for condonation of delay is ordered, it would cause serious prejudice to the prosecution and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4.Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

5.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 Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the said case, condoned the delay of 1637 days in filing the appeal by accepting the similar reason of lack of monetary resources.

2

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

CRL MP(MD)No.2023/2026

6.The petitioner herein, has also stated that due to financial instability, he was not able to file the appeal in time.

7.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 915 days, giving an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the statutory appeal on merits.

8.Accordingly, the delay of 915 days in filing the criminal appeal is condoned and the petition is ordered .

19.02.2026

AP Internet: Yes

3

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

CRL MP(MD)No.2023/2026

N.MALA,J

AP

CRL MP(MD) No.2023/2026 in CRL A(MD)SR.No.3933/2026

19.02.2026

4

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