IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 372 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRL. M.P. NO. 2316/2009 IN CRA.163/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CC.267/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- --------------------------------------------------------------- A.H.HASHIM, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.ASSAINAR, THANGAL, KALIYADUKKAM HOUSE, CHERUMBA, KUNIYA IN PERIYA VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR. P.SREEKUMAR MR. K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:- --------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE SHO, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION. 2. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. MR. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 372 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010. ORDER The revision petitioner who was the 1st accused in crime No. 827 of 2006 of Kasaragod Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 401 IPC, was tried before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod as C.C. No. 267 of 2007 along with the 2nd accused one Moideen @ N.L.S Moidu. After trial as per judgment dated 13.02.2008, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the 2nd accused but convicted the revision petitioner A1 of the offence punishable under Section 401 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and on default to pay the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod as Crl. Appeal No. 163 of 2009. Since the said appeal was filed beyond the Crl. R.P. No. 372/2010 : 2 : period of limitation, he also filed C.M.P. No. 2316 of 2009 to condone the delay of 490 days in filing the appeal. As per the impugned order dated 23.09.2009, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application to condone the delay and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. Hence this revision. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that since the petitioner was in custody, he could not contact his advocate and was disabled from filing the appeal in time and the court below should have taken a lenient view in the matter of condonation of delay. 3. I see a considerable force in the said submission. In the case of a custody prisoner, the learned Sessions Judge should not have taken such a strict view particularly in the matter of condonation of delay. Now, after the decision of the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji & Crl. R.P. No. 372/2010 : 3 : others - AIR 1987 SC 1353, the question of delay should receive a lenient view. Hence, the order dated 23.09.2009 in C.M.P. No. 2316 of 2009 is set aside and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and Crl. Appeal No. 163 of 2009 shall stand restored to file. The said appeal shall be disposed of in accordance with law and expeditiously and at any rate within two months of receipt of a copy of this order. This revision is disposed of as above. Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl. R.P. No. 372/2010 : 4 :