Allowed

R.Raja v. Manikandan

Madras HC6 Jan 2026CRL RC/2673/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a criminal revision challenging the dismissal of a petition for condonation of appeal delay. The Sessions Judge had dismissed the petition due to the petitioner's lack of representation for three hearings. The High Court set aside the order, directing the Sessions Court to reconsider the petition on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing the condonation petition was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Principal Sessions Judge to consider the petition for condonation of delay on its own merits.

R.Raja Vs Manikandan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL RC No. 2673 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06-01-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

CRL RC No. 2673 of 2025

¶7

R.Raja S/o.Rajendran, Govindapadi Post, Kolathur Via, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

¶10

Manikandan S/o.Sithayan, D.No.1/1-180, Thinnapatti Village, Pannavadi Post, Paricelthurai, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

¶11

..Respondent

¶12

To set aside the dismissal order passed in Crl.MP.No.1567 of 2025 dated 22.08.2025 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Salem.

¶13

For Petitioner: Mr.C.Deepakkumar For Respondent: No appearance

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The revision has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned

¶16

Principal Sessions Judge, Salem dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 111 days in filing the Appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.193 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate I, Mettur.

¶17

__________Page 1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

CRL RC No. 2673 of 2025

¶20

The petitioner, who was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of

¶21

the Negotiable Instruments Act, had preferred an Appeal before the Sessions Court, Salem. The said appeal was filed with a delay of 111 days and hence,

¶22

the petitioner had filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.1567 of 2025 seeking condonation of such a delay. The said petition was dismissed on the ground that there was no representation for the petitioner for three hearings.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has got statutory right to appeal against conviction, the learned Judge ought not to have dismissed the petition seeking condonation of delay; that the petitioner's counsel was ill and therefore, the petitioner could not be represented and the petitioner's absence is neither wilful nor wanton and unless the delay is condoned, the petitioner's valuable right to challenge the judgment of conviction would be lost.

¶24

Though the respondent has received notice and his name is printed in the cause list, none has entered appearance.

¶25

It is seen from the impugned order that there was no representation for the petitioner for nearly three hearings and hence, the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the petition seeking to condone the delay. Such a conduct of the petitioner cannot be appreciated. The petitioner, who is facing a judgment of conviction, ought to have been more vigilant. However, it is seen that it is the case of the petitioner that his counsel fell ill. Hence, in order to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the judgment of conviction passed

¶26

__________Page 2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

CRL RC No. 2673 of 2025

¶29

against him, this court is inclined to set aside the impugned order against him. The Principal Sessions Judge may consider the petition for condonation of delay on its own merits and pass appropriate orders.

¶30

With the above observation, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.

¶31

06-01-2026

¶32

ssk Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶33

¶34

Principal District and Sessions Court, Salem.

¶35

Judicial Magistrate I, Mettur.

¶36

Manikandan S/o.Sithayan, D.No.1/1-180, Thinnapatti Village, Pannavadi Post, Paricelthurai, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.

¶37

__________Page 3 of 4

¶38

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

¶39

CRL RC No. 2673 of 2025

¶40

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶41

ssk

¶42

CRL RC No. 2673 of 2025

¶43

06-01-2026

¶44

__________Page 4 of 4

¶45

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

R.Raja v. Manikandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Raja v. Manikandan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.N.Thyagarajan Vs Mr.v.Ramakrishnan

Sasi kumar Vs The State rep.by its, The Inspector of Police

M. Rajasekar Vs K. Velusamy

Kritika Malhotra Vs Senior Intelligence Officer

Magam Vinay Vardhan Vs The State rep by Inspector of Police

Sathish Vs The State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police