( 1 ) THE complainant in S. T. No. 4168 of 1999, filed under Sections 341 and 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was absent when the case was called before the judicial First Class Magistrate, thiruvananthapuram. All the seven accused in the case were present. The application of the complainant filed by the concerned counsel was rejected. The accused were acquitted under Section 351 (3) Cr. P. C

( 2 ) THE petitioner came up before this court by filing the above application for condoning the delay of 1026 days in preferring the Special Leave Petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

( 3 ) THE respondents/accused appeared. They have filed a counter. The main contentions are two fold, viz. , Section 378 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being a self contained provision, Sections of the limitation Act is inapplicable and the facts pleaded in the affidavit of the Advocate alone cannot be accepted and acted upon to condone the very long delay of 1026 days.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that because the Clerk, who was working within him, had left the office and also due to repeated catastrophe in his family life, he was unable