KARTHIKEYAN Vs. RAVINDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to condone delay in filing the Crl.M.C. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint on 1-11-1990 on the ground that the petitioner (complainant) was not present when the case was called for. Against that order petitioner filed Crl.R. P.21 of 1991 before the Sessions Court, Trichur. The Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition on the ground that it is not maintainable. It is thereafter that the above Crl.M.C. has been filed.

(2.) Contention of the petitioner is that there was no intentional delay or laches on his part and the delay occurred on account of the wrong filing of the Criminal Revision Petition before the Sessions Court, Trichur and also on account of his illness. To prove the illness, petitioner has produced Annexure-I medical certificate.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents opposed the application mainly on the ground that S.5 of the Limitation Act cannot have any application in a case coming under S.378(5) of the Cr.P.C. He argued that the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically provides 60 days as the period of limitation and that being so, S.5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked by the petitioner.