Compliance with the rules governing the presentation of appeals is essential, and failure to do so may result in the refusal to condone delays in filing appeals.

ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., is filed by two convicts assailing the order dated 05.02.2010 of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore in Crl.M.P.No.108 of 2009.

2. In C.C.No.256 of 2006 filed by the Station House Officer, IV Town Police Station (Law and Order), Nellore, these two revision petitioners were prosecuted and after due trial, learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nellore by a judgment dated 02.02.2007 found both of them guilty for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and each of them was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence of Simple Imprisonment for three months. Revision petitioner No.1 was further convicted for the offence under Section 509 I.P.C. and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence of Simple Imprisonment for three months.

3. The convicting judgment of learned Magistrate was delivered on 02.02.2007. It seems that both the convicts intended to prefer an appeal but they failed to prefer the appeal within time and therefore, they filed Crl.M.P.No.108 of 2009 before learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore seeking to condone 731 days delay in presenting the criminal appeal. State was shown as respondent in that application and it filed its counter. After due hearing, by the impugned order the learned Principal Sessions Judge, dismissed the application. Aggrieved of that order, the present revision is filed.

4. Learned counsel for revision petitioners and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted their arguments.

5. The point that falls for consideration is:

“Whether the impugned order suffers from illegality, irregularity or impropriety requiring interference?

6. Point:

Before the learned Principal Sessions Judge the facts presented by these revision petitioners indicate that they instructed their lawyer to file the appeal and the lawyer by a letter informed them that he preferred the appeal and it was pending. However, during the subsequent days they found that the appeal was not pending. In fact the appeal was filed on 01.03.2007 and the office raised certain objections and returned it on 06.03.2007. Their counsel took return of the bundle and misplaced it. Copies of the appeal papers are available with the revision petitioners. Since they entertained a genuine belief that the appeal was preferred and pending, they could not act otherwise until they realized that the appeal was not resubmitted and therefore it was not pending. These facts were shown as sufficient cause for condonation of 731 days delay.

7. On enquiring into this matter and after due hearing, the learned Principal Sessions Judge refused to condone the delay on the principal ground that the returned appeal papers were never represented and the objections were never complied with and all that set of papers were not brought to the Court and a different set of appeal papers were filed. Finding fault with such practice the learned Sessions Judge refused to condone the delay. Referring to the letter said to have been addressed by the earlier counsel to these revision petitioners, the learned Principal Sessions Judge recorded that the contents of the letter do not indicate filing of any appeal at all. With those reasons the petition for condonation of delay was dismissed.

8. In this revision, learned counsel submits that it was misplacement of bundle that was the cause of delay and the revision petitioners were not at fault, but it was the fault of their counsel and for the fault of the counsel the revision petitioners should not be punished. That the material submitted before the learned Sessions Judge would have convinced him to condone the delay. The grounds mentioned in the revision show that the original memorandum of appeal, which was returned by the Court, is not with the revision petitioners and it was not handed over to them and it was for that