STATE Vs. L GANESAN RE SPONDENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are petitions filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the revisions. The respondents in Crl. M. P. No. 7135/94 were prosecuted before the III Assis tant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in S. C. No. 145/87 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 307 and 212, Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, Section 126 (e) of the Prevention of Damages to the Public Property Act. Similarly, the respondents in Crl. M. P. No. 7136/94 were prosecuted before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Trichy, in S. C. No. 77/88 for the alleged offence under Sections 120-B, read with Sections 302, 307, 326, 324 and 332, Indian Penal Code, Section 126 Indian Railways Act and Sections 3 to 6 of the Explosive Substance Act.

(2.) By the G.O.Ms. No. 895 Public (Law and Order) Department dated 8-5-90, with these case were ordered to be withdrawn and the Court also permitted to withdraw the prosecutions on 25-6-90 and 20-9-90 respectively discharging the respon dents. It is against these orders of the trial Judges, the State has filed revisions. With a delay of 1407 days in Crl. M. P. No. 7135/94 and 1320 days in Crl. M. P. No. 7136/94. Hence, these petitions have been filed to condone the delay in filing the revisions.

(3.) The respondents have filed counters opposing these petitions stating that the delay is inordinate and proper reasons have not been given for the delay except calling it as administrative delay and the administrative delay cannot constitute any cause for condonation when especially the delay is enormous. It is also stated that when the State itself filed the petition to withdraw the prosecution under S. 321, Cr. P.C. the same State Government cannot now file the petitions challenging the order of granting per mission to withdraw the prosecution, and therefore, the respondents seek to dismiss the petitions.