RATHINATHANGAM Vs. PADMANABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE four accused in C.C. No. 138 of 1984 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, who were acquitted of the charges for the offences under Secs. 147, 447 and 323, I.P.C. are the revision petitioners herein challenging the propriety and legality of the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Nagercoil made in Crl.M.P. No. 1829 of 1991, dated 15.11.1991 condoning the delay of 90 days in preferring Crl.R.P. No.70 of 1991 and allowed the petition filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) THE four revision petitioners herein are the accused for the offences under Secs. 147, 447 and 323, I.P.C. and tried by the learned trial Magistrate and consequently after the trial they were acquitted of all the charges and against which it appears that there was no appeal preferred by the affected parties or the State. However, Crl.M.P. No.1829 of 1991 was filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act by the complainant by name Padmanabhan, son of Thangappa Nadar, adding these four accused as respondents 1 to 4 along with the State represented by the Public Prosecutor as fifth respondent, praying to condone the delay of 90 days in preferring Crl.R.P. No.70 of 1991 against the order of acquittal. THE case records show that the fifth respondent viz., the Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State alone had the notice and made an endorsement that he has no objection for allowing the condone delay petition and that no notice was served upon the respondents 1 to 4 who are the revision petitioners for the obvious reasons known to the petitioner therein. THE learned Sessions Judge, while entertaining the petition above referred to has also not directed notice to be served upon the respondents 1 to 4. It is noted that they are the accused persons tried for the offences above referred to and ultimately found not guilty and consequently acquitted thereupon. For the mere reasoning of the fifth respondent had said "no objection" for the condoning the delay the learned Sessions Judge by merely saying that there is enough ground to condone the delay, has allowed the said petition. Aggrieved at this, the four accused/ respondents 1 to 4 have preferred this revision challenging the impugned order as aforementioned.

(3.) THAT apart, the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order had not found nor even referred to any reasoning or ground to condone the delay. What is meant by 'sufficient cause" as spelt out in the Explanation in the section has not been identified or ascertained in the instant case and on this ground also the impugned order is liable to be set aside.