R.Neelakandan v. B.S.Radhakrishnan

Crl.M.P.No.1374 of 2023 in Crl.RC.SR.No.2305 of 2023 V. SIVAGNANAM, J.

This petition is filed to condone the delay of 224 days in filing the above Criminal Revision.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a delay of 224 days in filing the above criminal revision against the concurrent judgments convicting and sentencing him under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He further submitted that the delay on the part of the petitioner is neither willful, nor wanton, but due to the reason that there is no means for the petitioner to engage a counsel. Thus, he prayed that in order to re-appraise the impugned judgment, it is necessary to condone the delay of 224 days in filing the above Revision.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, by filing counter, objected to condone the delay on the ground that the delay is not explained properly.

V. SIVAGNANAM, J.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/1

msr

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner is convicted and sentenced by the first appellate court, in order to give a chance to the petitioner/accused to reappraise the judgment impugned herein, the reason stated by the petitioner for the delay is hereby accepted.

6. In view of the above, this court is inclined to condone the delay in filing the Revision. Accordingly, the delay of of 224 days in filing the Revision is condoned and the petition is ordered. 05.06.2023 msr Note: The Registry is directed to number the Revision, if it is, otherwise, in order.

Crl.M.P.No.1374 of 2023 in Crl.RC.SR.No.2305 of 2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/1