ARUMUGAM Vs. STATE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both. The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tuticorin in Crl. M.P. No. 2660/96 dated 28.11.1996, for appreciating the case in proper perspective, is extracted as Order:

(2.) IN the context of the above order, the averments made in the petition on behalf of the Petitioner without any reference to the provision of law, have been perused. In paragraph -4 of the petition, the circumstances which made the Petitioner/accused unable to fulfill the conditions were clearly explained. But, it is rather unfortunate to see that the learned trial Judge has clearly overlooked the above reasons and grounds to condone the delay in complying with the condition, and reasons as to why he did not either file a petition to condone the delay or comply with the condition. It is true, non -compliance of the conditions by the accused, if found wanton and deliberate, is a matter certainly to be taken note of and viewed with all seriousness by a Court of law. But, if it is found that beyond the reach of the Petitioner/accused the delay happened, then the Court below must take note of it and consider and consequently grant the relief requested. In the instant case, as I have already referred to, the circumstances pointed out by the accused for his lapse in complying with the condition for certain period, have not at all been considered by the learned trial Judge in the impugned order. He neither accepted, nor rejected the reasons, but simply overlooked and skipped the same without any consideration or discussion. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the very approach adopted by the learned Sessions Judge is not correct and on par with law.

(3.) ON having pursued the grounds and circumstances projected by the accused to condone the delay, I feel, they are worth to be taken note of and ought to have been accepted, but however, without doing so, it appears, the impugned order has been passed which is not at all correct, but erroneous.