Mayakrishnan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Puthiamputhur
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 15/12/2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA in CRL A(MD)SR.No.81622 of 2025 Mayakrishnan ... Petitioner Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Puthiamputhur, Puthiamputhur Police Station, Thoothukkudi District.
Crime No.372/2020.
... Respondent PRAYER in CRL MP(MD)No.19925 of 2025:- To condone the delay of 38 days in filing the criminal Appeal against the judgement dated 13.08.2025 on the file of Learned Sessions Judge/ Additional POCSO Court. Thoothukudi in Spl.SC.No.17 of 2021 vide judgement dated 13/08/2025. PRAYER in CRL A(MD)SR.No.81622 of 2025:- Criminal Appeal filed under Secton 415 of BNSS to call for the entire records pertaining to the judgment and conviction delivered by the Sessions Judge Additional POCSO Court, Thoothukudi in Spl.S.C.No.17 of 2021 vide her judgment dated 13.08.2025 and set aside the same and consequently acquit the appellant from all the charges referred to in the above said case.
For Petitioner : P.Samuel Gunasingh, For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 38 days in filing the above criminal appeal against the judgement in Spl.SC.No.17 of 2021, dated 13.08.2025 on the file of Learned Sessions Judge/ Additional POCSO Court. Thoothukudi.
2.The petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 4(1) of the POCSO Act, 2012 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3.The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition stated that due to financial constraints, he was not able to file the criminal appeal in time and that the delay was neither wilful nor wanton. Therefore, the delay of 38 days in filing the above appeal may be condoned. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conviction has caused severe prejudice, irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioner and that due to financial constraints, the petitioner could not file the appeal
in time. Hence, he prayed this Court to condone the delay of 38 days. 5.Heard both sides and perused the materials on record. 6.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 02.01.2025, in SLP. [Crl.].No.18045/2024, in the case of Mahesh Singh Banzara Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, following its earlier judgment, in the csae of Dilip S.Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd [2007 [6] SCC 528], held that the right to appeal, particularly, when it concerns the liberty of the individual, is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that the High Court, while dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay, was bound to examine the reasons for the delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the said case, condoned the delay of 1637 days in filing the appeal by accepting the similar reason of lack of monetary resources.
7.The petitioner herein, has also stated that due to financial constraints, the petitioner was not able to file the appeal in time. 8.Being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit and in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 38 days, giving an opportunity to the
petitioner to contest the statutory appeal on merits. 9.Accordingly, the delay of 38 days in filing the criminal appeal is condoned. The petition is ordered. Registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order and list the case for admission. 15.12.2025 SN /AP N.MALA,J SN / AP
CRL MP(MD) No.19925 of 2025 in CRL A(MD)SR.No.81622 of 2025 15/12/2025