KALIMUTHU Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner is the de facto complainant in C.C. No. 494 of 2010 on the files the of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mannarkkad. The Respondents 2 to 15 are the accused in the above case. The allegation against the respondents is that they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of that unlawful assembly, attacked the de facto complainant and caused damages to him. Thus the offence alleged against them are punishable under S.143,148,448,427, 506(iii) read with 34 IPC. On the complaint, the police registered a crime for the said offence and filed the final report charging the respondents for the said offence. After trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents; but the State has not preferred an appeal against the acquittal. In that context, the Revision petitioner preferred an appeal under S.372 of the Cr.P.C before the Sessions Court with a petition to condone delay of 725 days in filing the appeal as Crl. M. P. No. 1647 of 2012. After considering the grounds raised in the said petition, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition to condone delay. Consequently, the appeal also was dismissed. Both orders are under challenge in this Revision Petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the Revision Petitioner is a 'victim' coming under 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore he has the right to file an appeal against the acquittal. But there was a delay of 725 days. The delay happened on the sole reason that, he came to know the acquittal of the accused after 725 days from the date of the order only. When he came to know the acquittal of the accused, he obtained the copy of the judgment and immediately filed an appeal before Sessions Court. But, the learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the cause of delay stated in the said application in its correct perspective. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner drew my attention to the impugned order and submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has not applied his mind on the grounds raised in the petition, which is evident from the factually erroneous finding that the appeal was filed against the acquittal in a proceeding under S.138 of the N. I. Act. It shows that the learned Sessions Judge has not applied his mind over the facts of the case. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that there is a delay of 725 days and the delay was not properly explained in the petition. In the absence of proper explanation, the learned Sessions Judge can be justified in dismissing the petition in limine.

(3.) The short point that arises for consideration in this Revision Petition is, whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order dismissing the petition to condone delay in filing appeal, which is under challenge in this revision. Going by the order passed in Crl. M. P. No. 1647 of 2012, it is seen that the appeal was filed with delay of 725 days and learned Sessions Judge observed that the delay was not explained properly with cogent reasons. It is the case of the Revision Petitioner that, he came to know the acquittal of the accused after a long lapse of time.