IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 49 of 2008() ---------------------------- CC.447/97 OF JFCM, VARKALA CRA.94/00 OF ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVN. PETITIONER: REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------- P.SUDEVAN, OWNER OF PRABINDEV ENGINEERING WORKS, MAHADEVASAWARAM, KILIMANOOR. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- 1. VIKRAMAN NAIR, S/O. PADMANABHA PILLAI, ROADVILA VEEDU, OWNER OF VINCO METAL INDUSTRIES, 28TH MILE, VETTIYARA DESOM, NAVAIKULAM VILLAGE. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.T.K.MOHAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2008, ALONG WITH CRRP.48/08 THE COURT ON 08/01/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Crl.M.A. 82 OF 2008 IN Unnumbered Crl.R.P. OF 2008 and Crl.M.A. 83 OF 2008 IN Unnumbered Crl.R.P. OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner has filed these petitions to condone the delay of 399 days in filing the revision petitions against the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in two separate prosecutions both under Section 138 of the N.I. Act initiated by the same respondent/complainant. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay occurred on account of reasons beyond his control. The petitioner has now been taken to custody and is undergoing imprisonment from 26.12.07. In these circumstances, it is prayed that a lenient view may be taken and the delay may be condoned. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on merits in the revision petitions also. I am satisfied that the revision petitions can also be disposed of straightaway. In : 2 : these circumstances, I am satisfied that a lenient view can be taken and the delay can be condoned. I am satisfied that it is not necessary to wait for issue and return of notice to the complainants to consider these applications for condonation of delay. 4. In the result, these petitions are allowed. The delay in filing the revision petitions is condoned. Number the revision petitions. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks