K.K.Ravi, v. D.Suresh,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.01.2017
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM Crl.R.C.No.109 of 2017 K.K.Ravi S/o.Late Kandasamy .. Petitioner Vs.
1. D.Suresh S/o.Late Duraisamy
2. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by The Inspector of Police, B-6, Police Station (Law & Order), At present E2 Police Station, Peelamedu, Coimbatore.
Crime No.257 of 2007 .. Respondents Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the order of learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, passed in C.M.P.No.1442 of 2016 on 15.12.2016. For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz Government Advocate [Crl.side] [R2]
O R D E R
This revision arises against the order of learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, passed in C.M.P.No.1442 of 2016 on 15.12.2016, dismissing a petition u/s.5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 608 days in preferring an appeal.
2. Petitioner preferred a complaint against first respondent alleging offence u/s.380 IPC and the case was tried in C.C.No.347 of 2008 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Coimbatore. On appreciation of materials before it, the trial Court, under judgment dated 10.09.2014, acquitted the second respondent. There against, petitioner preferred an appeal. He has filed C.M.P.No.1442 of 2016 u/s.5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 608 days in
preferring the same. Court below, under the impugned order, dismissed such petition. Hence, this revision.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate [Crl.side] for second respondent.
4. In dismissing the petition, Court below has found that in the affidavit, the number of days of delay has been mentioned as 572 days whereas in the prayer, it has been mentioned as 608 days. Even assuming the contention of petitioner, that he came to know about the judgment of the trial Court only on 20.04.2015 and obtained a copy thereof on 30.12.2015, is true, he could have very well filed an appeal in January 2016. The case was of the year 2008 and the judgment was pronounced on 10.09.2014. The judgment of the trial Court revealed that after partial chiefexamination of PW-1, he has not appeared before Court for further examination and delayed the conduct of proceedings. Further, in the present petition, petitioner has levelled allegations against police personnel without any proof.
Though leniency would be shown in deciding petition u/s.5 of the Limitation Act, Court below considering the previous conduct of petitioner and given the above reasoning, dismissed the petition. This Court finds no error in the order under challenge. The Criminal Revision Case shall stand dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gm C.T.
To
1. The Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.6, Coimbatore.
3. The Inspector of Police, B-6, Police Station (Law & Order), At present E2 Police Station, Peelamedu, Coimbatore.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.Karthik, Advocate, S.R.No.5471 AD(CO) RS(24/02/2017) Crl.R.C.No.109 of 2017