P.Sravan Kumar v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

Crl.M.P.No.1669 of 2026 in Crl.RC.SR.No.3246 of 2026 SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Heard Mr.S.Sagayanathan, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr.M.Dinesh, learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first Respondent.

2. Private notice has been served to the second respondent. But there was no representation for the second respondent either in person or through his counsel.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking to condone the delay of 220 days in filing the criminal revision petition.

4. Mr.M.Dinesh, learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first Respondent has reported no objection for allowing this petition. He has stated that he has not filed any counter affidavit.

5. Therefore, it appears that both the respondents have nothing to say 1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SHAMIM AHMED, J .

dn either to entertain the condonation petition or to justify the convincing reasons to condone the delay.

6. Being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the delay of 220 days in filing the above criminal revision petition is condoned. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is ordered.

19.06.2026 dn Note: Office is directed to allot the regular number to Crl.R.C., and list the case for admission on 24.07.2026 before the appropriate bench.

Crl.M.P.No.1669 of 2026 in Crl.RC.SR.No.3246 of 2026 2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis