R.Narasimha Reddy v. K.Satyanarayana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.302 of 2012 ORDER:

This revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.A.M.P.No.880 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dated 23.12.2011 dismissing the application filed to condone the delay in preferring the appeal. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold:

1.

The trial Court dismissed the petition on assumptions and presumptions;

2. He further submitted that mere non-filing of the medical certificate itself is not a valid ground for dismissal of the petition.

A perusal of the record reveals that the respondent herein faced trial in C.C.No.301 of 2009 on the file of the Court of XIV Additional Judge-cum-XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After full fledged trial, the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the respondent is not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and acquitted him. Feeling aggrieved by the orders of the trial Court, the petitioner-de facto complainant filed appeal along with a petition in Crl.M.P.No.880 of 2011 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 35 days in preferring the appeal. The petitioner has taken a specific plea in his affidavit that due to ill-health he could not file the appeal within the period of limitation. It is needless to say that it is the duty of the petitioner

to assign reasons much less cogent and valid reasons for each day delay in filing the appeal or revision. The approach of the Court shall be pragmatic and not pedantic while disposing of the petitions filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but that does not mean the Court can glibly swallow the averments made in the affidavit and allow the petitions without scrutinizing the material available on record. In the instant case, it is the duty of the petitioner to convince the Court that due to ill health he could not file the appeal within the period of limitation. Absolutely there is no material on record to establish that on which date the petitioner had obtained the copy of the judgment. If really the petitioner had taken treatment, what prevented him to file the case sheet as well as the prescriptions.

The petitioner has not filed at least the certificate issued by the doctor under whom he took treatment for a period of 35 days. Non-filing of the case sheet or doctor certificate negates the contention of the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that due to reasons beyond his control, he could not file the appeal within the period of limitation. As observed earlier, the trial Court acquitted the respondent after full fledged trial. The petitioner miserably failed to assign the reasons much less cogent and valid reasons for condoning the delay of 35 days in preferring the appeal.

Viewed from any angle, there are no merits in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this revision, shall stand closed.

______________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J.

June 24, 2016 Rns