G. BABULAL Vs. JEEVARAJ H RAJ PROHITH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1167 of 2014, dated 10.01.2017 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Madurai, dismissing the petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.1955 of 2012, dated 05.09.2012 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Fast Track Court, Madurai.

(2.) The case of the revision petitioner is that he filed a complaint under Section 340 of Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai against the respondent in respect of commission of forgery by putting the Court seal on the face of the cheque in dispute in order to conceal the material alteration done in the figure, in the custody of the Court for the trial in S.T.C.No.2119 of 2005, that after issuance of notice in the said petition to the respondents, the case was transferred to the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Fast Track Court, Madurai, that since the enquiry in the petition filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C, is to be conducted before the Court in which the offence is committed, he filed a memo to send his complaint filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, that the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, without conducting any enquiry on the petition, dismissed the same on 05.09.2012, that he applied for order copy on 10.09.2012 and obtained the same on 12.09.2012, that the order copy was misplaced by him while shifted his residence and hence, he could not file the appeal in time, that he had traced out the order copy and filed the criminal appeal with the delay of 497 days, that the delay caused is neither willful nor wanton, that the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship, if the delay is not condoned and that therefore, the delay of 492 days is to be condoned.

(3.) It is evident from the records that the first respondent has filed a counter statement opposing the said petition and further stated that the reasons given for the delay in filing the appeal is not acceptable and the same is false, that the petitioner ought to have obtained another copy of the order and file the appeal in time and that therefore, the above petition is liable to be dismissed.