P.Arumugam v. The Inspector Of Police

Crl.M.P.No.9131 of 2022 in Crl.A.No.17349 of 2022 (Filing No.) D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J., It is seen that the affidavit of proof of services is filed. It is also seen that respondents 3 and 4 have received the notice. The notice that was sent to second respondent is returned with an endorsement that the addressee has moved from the address.

2. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would assert that the second respondent is the son of respondents 3 and 4.

3. In that view of the matter, the submissions of the learned counsel is accepted that with the knowledge of the proceedings, the second respondent is invading to receive notice. Therefore, service is treated as completed.

4. By considering reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application, I am of the view that the reasons adduced due to the pandemic period and on account of the personal suffering the petitioner has to undergo, there is a delay of 401 days in filing above criminal appeal. Having satisfied with the reasons, delay is condoned.

28.07.2022 nsa https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis