Only the State or de facto complainant can file revisions against discharge in criminal cases; third parties lack standing.

1. The petition in M.P.No.2 of 2008 and the unnumbered miscellaneous petition have been filed under S.5 of the Limitation Act, seeking an order to condone the delay of 310 days in filing the unnumbered Criminal Revision Petitions filed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1106 of 2006 and Crl.M.P.No.1105 of 2006 in Spl.C.No.2 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate - Cum - Special Judge, Cuddalore.

2. It is an admitted fact that the unnumbered Criminal Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner herein who was a third party to the criminal proceeding, that was disposed of by the court below, by a common order, dated 02.07.2007, whereby the accused were discharged from the alleged offence punishable under S.13 (2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 .

3. Mr. V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent who was arrayed as Al in Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate - cum - Special Judge, Cuddalore had filed a petition under S.239 Cr.P.C. seeking an order of discharge. Similar petition was also filed by co - accused / A2. The second respondent / A1 and A2 have been facing charges for an offence punishable under S.13(2) read with 13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . The Trial Court by a common order dated 02.07.2007 in Crl. M. P. No. 1106 of 2006 and Crl.M.P.No.1105 of 2006, allowed the petitions and discharged the petitioners / A1 and A2 from the alleged offence, that was punishable under S.13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988. Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein has preferred the unnumbered criminal revision petitions with the miscellaneous petition to condone the delay of 310 days. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / third party submitted that the petition filed under S.5 of Limitation Act, may be considered first and after numbering of the revision petitions, the same be considered by this Court.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents / A1 and A2 have submitted that the unnumbered revision petitions are not legally maintainable and there is no bona fide reason for the inordinate delay of 310 days to allow the petitions filed under S.5 of Limitation Act and argued for dismissal of the miscellaneous petitions to condone the delay and reject the unnumbered revision petitions filed by the petitioner / third party.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the unnumbered criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner / third party are legally not maintainable and the miscellaneous petitions filed, seeking an order to condone the inordinate delay of 310 days in preferring the unnumbered revision petitions are liable to be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent drew the attention of this Court to the order passed by this Court in a similar criminal revision petition in J. M. Arumugam and Another v. State reported in 2009(2) MWN (Cr.) 95 and argued that the petitioner / third party has no locus standi to prefer the revision against the order of discharge recorded by the court below, apart from the fact that there is inordinate delay caused by the petitioner, that was not satisfactorily explained and on that ground, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents requested this Court to dismiss the petition filed in M.P.No.2 of 2008 and also the unnumbered miscellaneous petition filed under S.5 of Limitation Act and to reject the unnumbered criminal revision petitions in Crl.R.C.S.R.No.39510 of 2008 and Crl.R.C.S.R.No.39514 of 2008.

7. In order t