The State Of Tamil Nadu Repby, v. H.Rajappan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23-09-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL MP No. 15036 of 2025 AND CRL A SR NO. 41027 OF 2025

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by, The Inspector Of Police, Vigilance And Anti Corruption, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris.

(Crime No.04/2008/AC/NI) Petitioner(s) Vs

1. H.Rajappan S/o. J.B. Halagowder, Junior Assistant, Ketti Town Panchayath, Coonoor Taluk, The Nilgiris District. Residing At, Denada Bengal Mattum (post), The Nilgiris District.

Respondent(s) CRL A SR No. 41027 of 2025

1. The State Rep By Appellant(s) Vs

1. H.Rajappan Respondent(s)

For Petitioner :

Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent :

Mr.S.R.Babu for M/s.Ahmad Associates

ORDER

The State had preferred this appeal with a delay of 22 days, against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in Spl.C.C.No.08 of 2024 dated 28.02.2025.

2.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor referred to the affidavit filed by the petitioner/appellant submitted that the trial Court judgment was rendered on 28.02.2025, certified copy applied on 04.03.2025 and it was received on 11.03.2025. The Deputy Legal Advisor, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Nilgiris gave an opinion on 09.04.2025 that the case is fit for appeal. Thereafter the same was submitted to the Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP-3) Department, Secretariat on 06.05.2025 and thereafter the Government sent a proposal to the State Public Prosecutor office on 23.05.2025 and the Public Prosecutor office gave an opinion to file an appeal on 29.05.2025. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor forwarded the legal opinion to the Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP-3)

Department, Secretariat on 10.06.2025 and the same was forwarded to the Public Prosecutor office on 24.06.2025 for preferring an appeal. The Public Prosecutor office preferred the appeal and the appeal was filed on 24.06.2025. Hence, the delay of 22 days is only a procedural delay and prayed to allow this petition.

3.The learned counsel for respondent filed his counter reiterating the merits of the case and further submitted that the delay of 22 days has not been properly and convincingly explained. Hence, strongly opposed the petition. 4.Finding that it is only a procedural delay, the delay stands condoned and the petition is ordered. The contention of the respondent on merits of the case can be considered at the time of admission of the appeal. 23.09.2025 rsi Note: Registry is directed to number the Criminal Appeal, if it is otherwise in order.

M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

rsi CRL MP No. 15036 of 2025 AND CRL A SR NO. 41027 OF 2025 23.09.2025