P.Karthikeyan, 29 Years v. State Rep. By

Crl.M.P.No.10983 of 2016 in Crl.A.Sr.No.44612 of 2016 M.VENUGOPAL, J.

Heard Mr.Durai Gunasekaran, Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant and Ms.M.F.Shabana, Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the Respondent.

2.It comes to be known that the Petitioner/Appellant has focused the Crl.M.P.No.10983 of 2016 in Crl.A.Sr.No.44612 of 2016 to condone the delay of 170 days in filing the Criminal Appeal against the Order dated 01.03.2016 passed in S.C.No.30 of 2015 by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mahila, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri.

3.It comes to be known that the Petitioner/Appellant was convicted in respect of an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and was directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further three months Rigorous Imprisonment.

4.It is represented on behalf of the Petitioner/Appellant/ Accused that the fine amount of Rs.1000/- was paid on 01.03.2016 before the trial Court.

5.The Petitioner/Appellant/Accused, as an aggrieved person, has focused the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court with a delay of 170 days and the reason attributed for the delay in question was that he was confined in Central Prison, Vellore from the date of his conviction and therefore, he could not mobilise the money for filing the Criminal Appeal and also that, his relatives are trying to file an Appeal before this Court and in this process, there had occasioned a delay of 170 days, which is neither wilful nor wanton but due to the afore-stated reasons.

6.Conversely, it is the submission of the Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the trial Court, on an appreciation of oral and available documentary evidence on record, had found that the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused guilty and awarded necessary punishment and the same is free from any flaw.

7.Admittedly, the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused, as an aggrieved person, has exercised his statutory right of preferring the present Criminal Appeal as envisaged under the relevant provision of the Criminal Procedure Code, of course, with a condone delay petition.

8.It is to be noted that when a Court of Law deals with a petition for 'Condonation of Delay, then, ordinarily, it is to adopt a lenient, reasonable and liberal approach with a view to secure the ends of Justice. By condoning the delay in question, the highest thing that would happen is the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused would get an opportunity to take part in the main arena of proceedings and there is a possibility of his 'cause' being decided on merits. Per contra, if the Condone Delay Petition is dismissed at the threshold, then, there is a possibility of even a meritorious case being thrown out at the inception itself.

9.It cannot be forgotten that generally no litigant/party would prefer an Appeal/Revision before a Court of Law with a deliberate delay, for the simple reason that he or she runs a grave risk in this

regard.

M.VENUGOPAL.J , Sgl 10.Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the Petitioner/ Appellant/Accused, at para 3 of his affidavit in Crl.M.P.No.10983 of 2016 in Crl.A.Sr.No.44612 of 2016, had categorically averred that he was confined in Central Prison, Vellore from the date of his conviction and therefore, he could not mobilise enough money for filing the Appeal, this Court, by taking a pragmatic, purposeful, practical, meaningful, lenient and liberal view, condones the delay of days subject to the rider that the Petitioner/Appellant/Accused shall pay the cost of Rs.1500/- (Rupees Thousand Five Hundred Only) to the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Madras on or before 15.11.2016, failing which, it is made clear that the Petition shall stand dismissed automatically without any further reference to this Court.

11.In fine, the Crl.M.P.No.10983 of 2016 is allowed. 20.10.2016 Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes / No Sgl Crl.M.P.No.10983 of 2016 in Crl.A.Sr.No.44612 of 2016