1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.07.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Crl.R.C.(MD) No.477 of 2011 Shanmugam ... Petitioner/Accused Vs State, rep.by the Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Tuticorin,Tuticorin District. (Crime No.16/2002) ... Respondent/Complainant Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397(1) read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, read with 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records and set aside the order dated 02.03.2011 in Cr.M.P.No.2479 of 2009 in unnumbered Cr.R.C... of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar For Respondent : Mr.A.Kandasamy Addl.Public Prosecutor ORDER The petitioner is working as a Head Constable in Kullathur Police Station at Tuticorin District. A case came to be filed against him in C.C.No.395 of 2002 for an offence under Sections 452 and 506(ii) IPC. During the trial, he filed an application in Cr.M.P.NO.1004 of 2006 under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to send for documents from Kulathur Police Station mentioning his Grade I P.C.number 1855. Infact his Grade I P.C. number is 1845. The said application was allowed and hence, summon was issued to the concerned police. The police personnel were also present before the Court with necessary documents to show that there was no Grade I P.C.1855 as stated by the petitioner. Then only, the petitioner came to know that he has wrongly typed that his Grade I P.C. as 1855, instead of 1845. Hence, he filed another application in Cr.M.P.No.6568 of 2007 furnishing his correct Grade I P.C.No. as 1845. 2. After hearing both parties, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, dismissed the application by observing that nowhere it is stated about the previous petition stating that earlier the Grade I P.C.No. was mistakenly stated; that the petitioner has come with the same relief for the second time without any valid reason and that as the petitioner has already exhausted his remedy. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed copy application to get certified copy of the above said order of dismissal. But, for a long time, the certified copies were not furnished to the petitioner and at one point of time, it was informed to the petitioner that the copy application could not be traced and so the petitioner filed another copy application on 02.01.2008 for issue of certified copies of the order and the same was issued to him only on 20.02.2009. In the above said process, there occurred a delay of 821 days. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the proceedings before the trial Court would indicate that the petitioner was sincerely participating in the proceedings, that he is a police constable and if any order of conviction is passed against him, he will be put to lot of hardships and hence, it may be held that the delay is not wanton and pray this Court that the petition may be allowed. 5. Repelling the contentions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the petitioner has not shown any interest for about two years in pursuing the copy application and hence, the delay may not be condoned and prayed for the dismissal of this petition. 6. This Court has considered the contentions on either side. 7. The affidavit filed in support of the petition would show that the mention of Grade I P.C.number occurred bona fide and was not intentional. Likewise, the delay in filing the second copy application was also on a bona fide belief that the petitioner was under the impression that he would get the certified copies from the Court below. Only when he was informed that the first copy application was missing, he filed another copy application and got the certified copy and thereafter, filed the present Criminal revision case. 8. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the delay is not intentional and it may be excused on condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Bench on or before 19.07.2011. With the above said condition, this Criminal revision case is allowed and the order dated 02.03.2011 made in Cr.M.P.No.2479 of 2009 in unnumbered criminal revision is set aside. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin. 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. 3. The Inspector of Police, South Police Station,Tuticorin. 4. The Officer Incharge, Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.R.C.(MD) No.477 of 2011 11.07.2011 ssm PA/26.07.2011/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/