IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2728 OF 2009() ----------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP.58/2009 IN CRA.27/2009 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,-I, MAVELIKKARA MC.2/2008 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VILASINI, W/O. DAMODARAN, CHAKKUZHITHARAYIL VEEDU, KOIPPALLY KARAZHMA, PERINGALA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S) - RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2728 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Heard counsel for petitioner and public prosecutor. 2. Petitioner has bailed out the accused in C.C.No.37 of 2005 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kayamkulam. As the accused did not appear in that court bail bond was forfeited. Notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 446(1)of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner was served with notice but she did not respond. Learned magistrate imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the petitioner. Petitioner took up the matter in appeal. As there was delay of 160 days in filing the appeal she filed Crl.M.P. No.58 of 2009 to condone the delay. Learned Additional Sessions Judge found that in spite of giving opportunity petitioner did not adduce evidence and dismissed the petition to condone the delay and consequently the appeal. Hence this revision petition. It is contended by learned counsel that a medical certificate had actually been produced along with the petition to condone delay. Learned counsel produced for my perusal the copy a medical certificate produced along with Crl.M.P. No.58 of 2009. That certificate is issued by the Assistant Surgeon of Primary Health Centre to the effect that petitioner was under his CRL. R.P. No.2728 of 2009 -: 2 :- treatment for Chikun gunya and post Chikun gunya arthritis from July 2008 onwards and she required treatment for six months. It is also stated that she needed rest during that period. 3. This is a case where petitioner was directed to pay penalty of Rs.50,000/-. I am not inclined to think that petitioner would wilfully fail to file appeal and challenge the order. On going through the document produced by the petitioner and stated above I am satisfied that delay is explained. Hence Crl.M.P. No.58 of 2009 will stand allowed and the consequent dismissal of the appeal is set aside. Resultantly this revision petition is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside and Crl.M.P. No.58 of 2009 will sand allowed. Consequently dismissal of Crl. Appeal No.27 of 2009 is set aside. Learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to take the appeal on file (if it is otherwise in order) and pass appropriate orders on merits after hearing petitioner or counsel if they are available. Petitioner shall appear in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikkara on 30.9.2009. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv