The matter is heard through "Video Conference".

2. Crl.M.P.No.10754 of 2017, is filed to condone the delay of

1128 days in filing the criminal revision in Crl.R.C.SR.No.36771/2017.

3. The revision petitioners are arrayed as accused 1 to 3 in STC.No.510/2014, before the District Munsif Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil. The respondent/police has registered the case in Crime No.283/2013, under Sections 323, 342, 324 and506(ii) of IPC.

4. Based upon the complaint given by the first petitioner herein, alleging that on 16.10.2013 at about 8.00 am, when the 1st petitioner was loaded the river sand in the shed situated at his garden by using JCB machine, his brother and other accused came and assaulted him. First petitioner was attacked by above said 3 person with Aruval and the above case was registered. After completion of investigation, the respondent/police filed charge sheet for the alleged offence and the same was taken place on file in C.C.No.81/2014.

5. The accused No.2/Jayapal in C.C.No.81/2014, also lodged a complaint against the petitioner herein and the same was registered on the file of the respondent/police in Crime No.284/2013 under Section 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC and after investigation, charge sheet was taken on file by the very same Judicial officer in STC.No.510/2014.

6. The case of the petitioner is that

6(a). the brother of the first petitioner herein Jayapal is aggressor of the occurrence took place on 16.10.2013 and hence, the respondent-police, ought to have followed the order 588A of the police standing order, ought to have filed charge sheet in both the cases, as a case and case in counter. Since, the same was not done, alleging the said violation, the accused- petitioners herein have filed the Crl.M.P.No.5155/2014 to drop the further proceedings in STC No.510/2014.

6(b). The trial Magistrate, after perusing the records in both the cases, have observed that since the accused in C.C.No.81/2014, have already appeared before the Court and filed a plead guilty memo and fine has been imposed upon A2 and A3 in the said C.C.No.81/2014. In view of the plead guilty memo filed by the accused, the learned the then Magistrate has accepted the memo and found A1 to A4 are found guilty, A2 and A3 are convicted and directed to pay fine and in respect of A1 and A4, taking into consideration that they are first offender, having a good conduct as admonition, under Section 3 and 4 of Probation of Offender Act, 1958 and the order was passed on 12.04.2014.

6(c). In view of the disposal of the said C.C.No.81/2014, the learned Magistrate has chosen to dismiss the Crl.M.P.No.5155/2014, filed by the petitioners herein and ordered them to face the trial. Aggrieved against the said order, they have preferred this criminal revision in Crl.R.C.No.1463/2017.

7. As against the order passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.81/2014, they have preferred the criminal revision in Crl.R.C.SR.No.36771/2017, with a petition to condone the delay of 1128 days and both the criminal revisions and petition to condone the delay was taken together, common arguments have been heard and disposed of by this common order.

8. After perusing the evidence filed in support of the said Crl.M.P.No.10754/2017, I find that there is no plausible explanation for the long delay. Admittedly, the accused therein, pleaded guilty and filed a memo. The learned Magistrate has taken note of the alleged offence, has recorded his reasons for accepting the plead guilty memo and also awarded fine in respect of A2 and A3. In respect of A1 and A4, taking note of the fact that they are first offender having good conduct had admonition them and the learned Magistrate has rightly ordered admonition and hence, in the absence of any cogent explanation for long delay, I find there is no merit in Crl.M.P.No.10754/2017. Accordingly, the said petition shall stands dismissed.

9. In Crl.R.C.No.1463/2017, the prime allegation averred by the revision petitioners are that