Compliance with procedural rules, including submission of typed petitions, is essential for processing legal documents in court, and cannot be disregarded due to personal circumstances.

ORDER :

M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

1. This Court, on 10.11.2023, had passed the following order:

“Today, the petitioner, party in person advanced his argument towards return of his revision petition by the Registry on the ground of maintainability and submitted that there have been seven grounds on which it has been returned.

2. The petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Section 382 of Cr.P.C and submitted that the same would apply in the case of revision petition also. Section 382 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

"382. Petition of appeal. Every appeal shall be made in the form of a petition in writing presented by the appellant or his pleader, and every such petition shall (unless the Court to which it is presented otherwise directs) be accompanied by a copy of the judgment or order appealed against."

3. He further submitted that he is a practising advocate from the year 1994 before various courts i.e., the Magistrate Court, Sessions Courtand High Court and he had been very busy throughout his profession. Now, he is under money constraints which is one of the reasons for not presenting the typed version of the petition. Further, if he enters any DTP centre, they are not allowing him and he is not entertained which is also one of the reasons for submitting hand written petition. He further submitted that it is not the duty of the Registry to question the prayer part and if at all it is, they have any question, then post it before the Court and the Court has to decide the same. He further submitted that there is a direction given by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, in which for revision cases disposal, neither the parties nor the counsels are required, the High Court shall correct the mistakes and give appropriate directions. Further he relied upon the Judgment in the case of Somu vs. State of Madras with regard to the appearance on summons. He further submitted that delay may not sustain in this case, since the delay objection was only seven days. The seven days delay can be condoned for substantial justice. Further he relies upon a Division Bench Judgment in this regard.

4. The petitioner who is the party in person and also an advocate is directed to produce the proof of his monetary constraint and for notentertained in the DTP centre, as regards to his reference to the Judgment of Kerala High Court and the Judgement in the case of Somu vs. State of Madras and other judgments which he relies upon. He seeks time to produce.

5. Post the matter on 29.11.2023.”

2. The Registry of this Court had objections in numbering the revision and hence, returned the petition for the reason that the petition is not in compliance with Rule 149 of the CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE , 2019 and directed the petitioner to file a typewritten or printed petition as per Rule 149 of the CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE . The petitioner re-presented the petition stating that the CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE by its preamble is applicable only to Subordinate Courts and not to High Courts. Further, referring to Section 382 of Cr.P.C. and W.A.No.526 of 2018, represented the hand written petition.

3. The primary contention of the petitioner that CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE is not applicable to High Courts, is not proper. Rule 198 of the CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE reads as follows:

"198. CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE to apply to High Court --

These Rules shall govern the practice of the High Court on the Appellate Side to the extent to which they are applicable.

4. The Appellate Side Rules also prescribes the petition to be typewritten. Further, the petitioner relying upon Section 382 of Cr.P.C, which is not applicable to the case in hand. Though the petitioner referred to the direction given by the Division Bench of Kerala High Co