IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 931 of 2002(A) CRL.M.P.NO.1220/2002 IN CRL.A.NO.203/2002 S.T.NO.319 OF 1998 IN JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE-III, KOZHIKODE APPELLANT/ACCUSED SULAIKHA W/O.ABDULLA, CHERUKAPPALLI HOUSE, THACHANGANAD AMSOM, AMAKKAD DESOM, NOW RESIDING AT KIDANGAYAM, P.O.KADAMBOT, PANDALUR AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. MR.V.V.SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON 15/12/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.931 of 2002 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of DECEMBER, 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O R D E R 1. The petitioner was the appellant in Criminal Appeal.No.203/2002, which was filed against the order of the learned Judicial Ist Class Magistrate-III, Kozhikode in S.T. No.319/98 to the extent it ordered the confiscation of the articles seized from the petitioner. The petitioner was the accused in S.T.319/98. The allegation against her was that, she had stolen the above articles and that they were seized from her. She was charge sheeted under Section 53 (A) of the Kerala Police Act. As per order dated 31/10/2001, the learned Magistrate acquitted the petitioner, under Section 255 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate framed three points for consideration: Crl.R.P.No.931 of 2002 2 1.Whether the accused was found in possession of stolen articles unable to give satisfactory explanations for its possession as alleged by the prosecution? 2.What offence is proved against the accused? 3.If found guilty, what is the sentence or order? As per order dated 31/10/2001, it was found that the prosecution had failed to establish that the accused had committed the offence alleged against her. Further, it was found that based on the finding against point No.1, the other points did not call for consideration. It was based on the said finding against point No.1, the petitioner/accused was acquitted under Section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the articles seized from the petitioner, viz. MO.1 series and MO.3 to 8 series, of articles were ordered to be confiscated. Feeling aggrieved by that part of the order, Criminal Appeal 203/2002 was filed by the petitioner. 2. There was a delay of 123 days in filing the said criminal appeal and the petitioner has filed an affidavit explaining the said delay. According to the petitioner, she came to know about the confiscation of the articles Crl.R.P.No.931 of 2002 3 mentioned above, only in January 2002 and thereafter steps were taken for filing the appeal. The certified copy of the order was delivered to the petitioner on 10/4/2002, and the appeal was filed admittedly on 6/5/2002. The case of the petitioner was that being an order of acquittal, she did not submit the application for copy of the order in that case whilst applied for a copy of the order only on coming to know that the order contains a direction to confiscate the above mentioned articles seized from her. On coming to know about that part of the order, she had taken prompt and proper steps. The delay that occurred after the receipt of the copy of the order was also explained by assigning the reason that she had waited only to see whether any appeal has been preferred by the prosecution against the order of acquittal. Having gone through the affidavit, filed by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the delay occurred in filing the appeal cannot said to be a culpable delay. Willful latches or delay cannot be attributed on the part of the Crl.R.P.No.931 of 2002 4 petitioner, in the light of the reasons stated in the affidavit. In the totality of the circumstances, I find that there was no reason to dismiss the application for condoning the delay in filing the criminal appeal and in fact, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said appeal deserves to be considered on merits. In the circumstances, the order in C.M.P. No.1220/2002 in Crl.A.No.203/2002 is set aside, and the court below is directed to decide the criminal appeal on merits expeditiously. 3. The criminal revision petition is allowed as above. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE nl