SAJITHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Learned Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent.

(2.) PETITIONERS bailed out the accused in ST No. 303 of 2006 of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam on executing bond for Rs.20,000/- each. That is the case registered for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused violated the bail conditions and thereon learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cancelled the bail. Proceeding was initiated against the petitioners, sureties. Though, the main case itself was settled between the accused and the complainant, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as per order dated 30/06/2009 in MC No. 18 of 2009 ordered petitioners to pay penalty of Rs.20,000/- each with a delay of 140 days, petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. They filed Crl. MP No. 3532 of 2009 to condone the delay, reason stated being that first petitioner was pregnant during the relevant time, was advised to bed rest and could not take steps to prefer an appeal and the second petitioner, also a lady was out of Kerala in connection, with her job and hence the delay. Learned Sessions Judge was not impressed by the reasons stated for condonation of delay in that, first petitioner did not produce medical certificate to prove her pregnancy during the relevant time and reason stated by second petitioner for her absence in the State cannot be accepted. Consequence was dismissal of Crl. MP No. 3532 of 2009 and resultantly the appeal as well. Order in Crl. MP No. 3532 of 2009 is under challenge in this revision. Learned counsel submits that there was no reason to disbelieve the statement of petitioners as to the reason for delay. Learned counsel also submits that the fact of composition entered between the accused and the de facto complainant though, subsequent to initiation of proceedings in MC No. 13 of 2009 was not taken into account by the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) THERE is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.