S SANJU Vs. PRAKASH JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.814 of 2005 viz., S.Sanju and the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.Nos.815 and 816 of 2005 viz., Subash Bafna @ S.S.Jain were convicted by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, in C.C.Nos.7303, 7304 and 7306 of 2004 respectively. Against the said conviction, the revision petitioners have preferred three appeals before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and in preferring the said appeals, there was a delay of 64 days. Seeking condonation of delay, the revision petitioners have filed Crl.M.P.Nos.2320, 2321 and 2322 of 2005 respectively. THE learned Sessions Judge had allowed the said petitions directing the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.2320 of 2005 to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation amount. As regards the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.2321 of 2005, he was directed deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation amount and as regards the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.2322 of 2005, he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation amount. All the petitioners were directed to deposit the amount on or before 04.07.2005 and the trial Court also observed that failing compliance of the condition, the petitions would stand dismissed. THE matter was adjourned to be posted on 05.07.2005. Challenging the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing the revision petitioners to pay certain amounts towards compensation in each case, the petitioners have preferred the above said criminal revision cases before this Court.

(2.) THE learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the appeals were filed challenging the conviction, sentence imposed on the petitioners and also the compensation amount awarded. While so, the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have insisted the petitioners/accused to pay compensation amount as a condition for condoning the delay. THE learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that at this stage, the petitioners were also not in a position to pay the compensation amount within the stipulated time.

(3.) IT appears from the Appellate Court records that as the compensation amount as directed by the Appellate Court was not deposited by the revision petitioners, the condone delay petitions, filed by them, were dismissed on 05.07.2005. This Court feels that it was not proper for the Appellate Court to impose the condition precedent for depositing certain amounts for allowing the condone delay applications. IT is the duty of the Court to see whether sufficient reasons are given by the petitioners for condoning the delay in preferring the appeals. The Court ought to have considered the reasons given by the petitioners in the affidavit filed by them seeking condonation of delay. As such, if the Court is convinced with the reasons given by the petitioners for the delay in preferring the appeals, then the Court ought to have allowed the applications. IT is improper and illegal for the Appellate Court to direct the petitioners to deposit certain amounts as a condition for allowing the petitions seeking condonation of delay.