HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL IA No.1 of 2025 In/And CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.267 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:

Criminal Revision Case No.267 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner/accused aggrieved by the judgement dated 08.10.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2015, on the file of the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar wherein and whereby the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/ accused by the learned VIII Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar, Hyderabad on 18.11.2014 vide judgment in SC No.340 of 2014 sentencing the petitioner/accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was confirmed.

2. IA No.1 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No.267 of 2025 praying the Court to condone the delay of 2,238 days in filing the present criminal revision case.

3. Heard Sri Mohd.Ashraf Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

4. As seen from the affidavit filed in support of IA No.1 of 2025, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the mother of the petitioner died, the petitioner could not attend the appellate Court and in his absence the appellate Court passed the judgment and even he does not know the fate of the appeal. Thus stating, he prayed to condone the delay of 2,238 days in preferring the present criminal revision case.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the present criminal revision case as well as the interlocutory application, filed to condone the delay, mainly contending that inordinate delay in preferring the revision cannot be condoned since the grounds urged by the petitioner have no force. Thus stating, he prayed to dismiss the interlocutory application and to reject the criminal revision case.

6. The proposition of law is very clear that to condone the delay the petitioner has to offer sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier and the said cause must establish that because of some event or circumstance arising before limitation expired, it was not possible to file the revision within time. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5 of Limitation Act.

7. This Court perused the material on record and heard the rival contentions advanced on either side. The main ground urged on behalf of the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 2,238 days is that in view of demise of his mother, the petitioner could not attend the appellate Court and that he even don’t know the name of his counsel in the appeal and also the result of the appeal and that in his absence the appellate Court pronounced the judgment. The above grounds show the negligence on the part of the petitioner since he being the appellant, it is his bounden duty to follow-up his case and that the above explanation offered by the petitioner cannot be accepted. Further, the above explanation appears to be not sufficient cause warranting this Court to condone the delay. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the present interlocutory application, filed to condone the delay, is liable to be dismissed.

8. In the result, IA No.1 of 2025 is dismissed and consequently, the Criminal Revision Case No.267 of 2025 is rejected.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.

____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Dated: 04.04.2025 Abb