Delay in filing criminal revision petitions was not condoned due to inadequate justification, reaffirming importance of adherence to limitation rules.

ORDER

Heard Mr.G.Ramanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Titus, learned counsel for the respondent.

2.The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 833 days in filing the Criminal Revision Cases bearing Crl.R.C(MD)SR.Nos.20369 and 20370 of 2025.

3.The facts of case, in a nutshell, led to filing of these Petitions and necessary for disposal of same, are as follows:-

a) The petitioner totally borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from the respondent on various occasions and had given four cheques, bearing cheque Nos.539226, 539227, 539228, and 539231, dated 23.02.2025, 25.02.2025, 28.02.2025 and 03.03.2025 respectively for a sum of Rs.60,000/-, Rs.60,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,80,000/- respectively, in total, a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. When the respondent has presented the cheques for collection, the same was returned with reason “insufficient funds”. Therefore, the respondent has sent legal notice to the petitioner, demanding repayment of the amount covered by the cheques and despite receiving the same, the petitioner neither sent a reply nor repaid the said amount. Therefore, the respondent has filed a private complaint for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner.

b) It is seen from the records that the petitioner has been convicted by the trial Court in C.C.No.147 of 2006 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months and has also been convicted by the trial Court in C.C.No.148 of 2006 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 9 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed appeals in Crl.A.Nos.41 and 42 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Padmanabhapuram and the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Padmanabhapuram, by confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeals, vide order dated 03.11.2022.

c) Since the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Padmanabhapuram, had dismissed the appeals in Crl.A.Nos.41 and 42 of 2011, vide order dated 03.11.2022, the petitioner has filed a copy application only in the month of April, 2025, as he was not informed about the dismissal of the appeals by the counsel. In the above circumstances, the petitioner was unable to file the present Criminal Revision Petitions within the stipulated time, resulting in a delay of 833 days. Hence, the impugned judgment, dated 03.11.2022 in Crl.A.Nos.41 and 42 of 2011 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Padmanabhapuram, is under challenge in the present Criminal Revision Petitions along with the delay condonation petitions.

4.This Court, vide order dated 23.09.2025, in the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions, had passed the following order:- “The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed with the following prayer:

“to condone the delay of 833 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition as against the order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Padmanabhapura, in Crl.A.Nos. 41 and 42 of 2011, dated 03.11.2022 confirming the c