THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.733 of 2025

ORDER :

Petitioner filed this Criminal Revision Case seeking to quash the order, dated 16.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.86 of 2024 in Criminal S.R.No.6693 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge at Hyderabad.

2. Heard Mr. Kapuluru Sai Varun, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. Case of the petitioner is that he has lodged a complaint against the respondents-accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences under Sections 409, 448, 420 and 120-B of IPC. Basing on the said complaint, the Police have registered a case in Crime No.133 of 2008 and taken up investigation. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the respondents-accused before the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad (for short ‘trial Court’), the same was taken cognizance and numbered as C.C.No.158 of 2012 for the aforesaid offences. By judgment, dated 06.01.2021, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents-accused. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal along with Crl.M.P.No.86 of 2024 under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 seeking to condone the delay of 1167 days in preferring the Appeal. However, the learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 16.07.2025, dismissed the application filed for delay condonation on the ground that the delay is long, inordinate and not explained properly. Aggrieved further, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:

4.1. The delay is not intentional or deliberate. As the appeal is filed under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C., it is not necessary to file an application for condonation of delay. Even if the application seeking condonation of delay is filed, it ought to have been allowed by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in not considering the purport of proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C., which provides remedy to the victim and there is no limitation to prefer an appeal as per the said proviso.

4.2. The period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No.3 of 2020. Considering the relaxation provided, there is an effective delay of

748 days instead of 1167 days in filing the Appeal.

4.3. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Ranjana Shantilal Suryawanshi v. Jaiprakash Tulsiram Gupta and another, 2020 ALL MR (Cri) 2926 and Mohd. Azim Sheikh Ibrahim and others v. Mehamuda Anjum Mohd. Azim and another, 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 991 wherein it was held that there is no provision of limitation for filing an appeal by the victim under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C.

4.4. Hence, he prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned order, dated 16.07.2025.

5. Although there is no provision regarding the limitation period for preferring an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner had filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1973, seeking condonation of delay. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have adopted liberal approach. Furthermore, the petitioner had provided sufficient explanation for the delay, stating that he lost track of the case due to his counsel’s inaction. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have allowed the application.

6. It is also relevant to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court excluded the Covid-19 period i.e., from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 from the computation of limitation. Applying this exclusion, the effective delay in filing the appeal is reduced to 748 days, rather than the originally calculated 1167 days.

7. In view of the above, the impugned order, dated 16.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.86 of 2024 i