Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 257
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
M.P.(MD) SR No. 1 of 2012 in Crl. R.C. SR (MD) No. 18739 of 2012
Decided On: 09-01-2013
The main legal point established is the requirement of 'sufficient cause' for delay as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the discretionary nature of Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 to 401 of Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Criminal Revision Petition - Section 245(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code - Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 397 to 401 of Cr.P.C. - [Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 245(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, Section 397 to 401 of Cr.P.C.] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and its requirement of 'sufficient cause' for delay. It highlighted the discretionary power of the court to condone the delay and emphasized the need for a systematic and reason-informed exercise of discretion. The court also referenced Section 397 to 401 of Cr.P.C. which deals with Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court and emphasized the discretionary nature of these powers, to be exercised in rare cases to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to condone a delay of 902 days in filing a Criminal Revision Petition against an order passed by the trial Court. The delay was attributed to the incarceration of the second petitioner, his wife's health issues, and other circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
The court, after considering the reasons for the delay, allowed the petition by taking a lenient and liberal view, and directed the petitioners to pay a sum to the Legal Aid Services Committee.
Issues: The main issue was the condonation of the 902-day delay in filing the Criminal Revision Petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for 'sufficient cause' for delay as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and exercised its discretionary powers to advance the cause of justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the petitioners to pay a sum to the Legal Aid Services Committee.
M. Venugopal, J.
1. The Petitioners/A.1 and A.2 have focused the present Miscellaneous Petition praying to condone the delay of 902 days in preferring the Criminal Revision Petition SR (MD) No.18739 of 2012 as against the order dated 5/11/2009 in Cr.M.P.No.196 of 2008 in C.C.No.7 of 2001 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.
2. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/A.1 and A.2, the First Petitioner/First Accused is a Company and the Second Petitioner/Second Accused has filed an affidavit in M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2012 stating that the Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 5/11/2009 in Cr.M.P.No.196 of 2009 in C.C.No.7 of 2001 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai in dismissing the Discharge Petition filed under Section 245 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Accused contends that the order of dismissal dated 5/11/2009 in Cr.M.P.No.196 of 2009 in C.C.No.7 of 2001 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai is an erroneous one and as such the Petitioners/Accused A.1 and A.2 are assailing the correctness of the orders passed by the trial Court before this Court in the Revision Petition. Furthermore, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners/Accused submits that the Criminal Revision Petition should have been filed by the Petitioners/accused by 5/2/2010, but due to various factors, the same could not be filed within time.
4. Advancing his arguments, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners/Accused that the Second Petitioner/Second Accused was incarcerated from 14/2/2006 till 10/1/2011 and at the time of his release, he was directed to remain at Kolkatta and this condition still continues till this date. Also, the Second Petitioner/Second Accused wife has suffered due to various unfortunate circumstances and he was to be under a Psychiatrist's care, besides requiring the supervision of the Second Petitioner/Second Accused in connection with her health which often requires medical attention. That apart, the Second Petitioner/Second Accused was suffering from health issues including severe hyper tension and other ailments. Only after a period of 1 1/2 years, after his release from the prison, the Second Petitioner was able to organise himself and instructed his Counsel through his Staff represents which resulted in filing of the instant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court. In that process, there has occasioned a delay of 902 days in projecting the Criminal Revision Petition before this Court. The said delay of 902 days is neither willful nor wanton but to the reasons stated supra.
5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Accused submits that the Second Petitioner in A.S.T.No.906 of 2010 (C.R.M.No.16226 of 2010) has been released on bail by the Honourable High Court of Calcutta, subject to the condition that he shall execute P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.50 lakhs with one or two solvent sureties and further that he was directed not to leave India without the permission of the trial Court and was directed to reside at Kolkatta etc.
6. Continuing further, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Accused informs this Court that the Second Petitioner/Second Accused came out on bail on 10/1/22011. The pith and substance of the contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioners/Accused is that the Petitioners/Accused A.1 and A.2 in Law, could not be denied the right of preferring the Criminal Revision Petition as against the impugned order dated 5/11/2009 in Cr.M.P.No.196 of 2008 in C.C.No.7 of 2001 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. Further, to the Petitioners/Accused, pray for an opportunity being provided to them to contest the main Criminal Revision Petition on merits.
7. The Respondent/Complainant has filed a detailed counter to M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2012 inter alia stating that the Petitioners/Accused 1 and 2 have pr
