IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1669 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- CRL.M.P.NO.910/2009 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM, CC.NO.190/1998 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, PUNALUR. .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/ PEITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PUSHPAN,AGED 32 YEARS,S/O.VELUMPAN, KANNAMKARA MANNIL VEEDU,KUNDAYAM MURI,PATTAZHI VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE,PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. ANIL,AGED 27 YEARS,S/O.THANKAPPAN,KANNAMKARA MANNIL VEEDU, KUNDAYAM MURI,PATTAZHI VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SYAM J. SAM. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. RAVINDRA BABU. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.NO. 1669 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009 ORDER Petitioners are aggrieved by the dismissal of Crl.M.P.No.910/99 filed for condonation of delay in filing a Criminal Appeal before the Sessions Court, Kollam. 2. Petitioners were convicted by learned magistrate for offence punishable under Sections 323 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”) and were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-. They challenged that conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No.50/2003. Appeal was allowed in part and while confirming the conviction under Section 323, conviction under Section 326 was altered to Section 325 of the Code. Appellate Court remitted the case to the trial court to pass appropriate sentence after considering whether request of the petitioners for probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act could be entertained. Thereafter, learned magistrate sentenced the petitioners to undergo imprisonment Crl.R.P.166/09 2 and fine. That was challenged in this Court in Criminal M.C.No.1874/2008. Later that petition was withdrawn and Crl.R.P. No.2121/2008 was filed in this Court. That revision petition being not maintainable was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.12.2008. Thereafter petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal before the learned Sessions Judge with Crl.M.P.No. 910/2009 to condone the delay of 8 months and 7 days in filing the appeal. Learned Sessions Judge was not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioners and dismissed the petition. Learned counsel pointed out that the delay has been explained and it was due to the pendency of the proceedings in this Court. 3. It is not disputed that Crl.R.P.No.2121/2008 was dismissed by this Court as withdrawn on 10.12.2008. Petitioners say that they got a copy of that order only on 15.1.2009. Hence, there happened to be delay of 8 months and 7 days. I am not inclined to think that there was any willful latches or delay on the part of the petitioners in not filing the appeal in time and records show that, though by way of a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition or revision, they attempted to challenge the sentence imposed on them. I am Crl.R.P.166/09 3 satisfied that the delay is explained. 4. Resultantly, this revision is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. Crl.M.P.No.910/2009 will stand allowed. Learned Sessions Judge is directed to take the appeal on file if it is otherwise in order, and dispose of the same as provided under law. It is submitted by the learned counsel that warrant is pending against petitioners. It is directed that the warrant shall stand in abeyance for a period of three weeks from today or till the learned Sessions Judge passes orders on the petition for suspension of sentence, whichever is earlier. THOMAS P. JOSEPH , JUDGE Acd Crl.R.P.166/09 4