IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2010 / 20TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2126 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.952/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM SC.1289/2001 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, ATTINGAL .................... REVISION PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- SUGUNAN,S/O.ANANTHAKRISHNAN, T.C.28/1185,A.K.S.BUILDING,VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON, SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUDHA KRISHNAN,GEETHA BHAVAN, HOUSE NO.M.P.V/148,MANGALAPURAM PANACHAYATH. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR R2 BY ADVS. SRI.M.M.HUSAIN, SRI.S.SHANAVAS (VAVARAMBALAM). THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.2126 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2010. O R D E R The challenge in this revision petition is against the order dated 19.12.2009 in Crl.A.No.952/08 by which the Sessions Court, Trivandrum, dismissed the appeal, since the delay condonation application was dismissed as per order in Crl.M.P.No.3938/08. 2. The revision petitioner herein was examined as PW7 in Sessions case No.1289/01 in the Court of Asst. Sessions Judge, Attingal. He was examined in the court on 2.6.2004. The above sessions case was instituted at the instance of the defacto complainant, who is the 2nd respondent herein. Originally on the basis of the F.I. statement given by the 2nd respondent, Crime Nos.207/99 and 249/09, were registered in the Mangalapuram Police Station and during the investigation of the above crimes, certain gold ingot were seized by the Investigating Officer, which was produced in S.C.1788/01 and S.C.1289/01. The above Crl. R.P.No.2126 of 2010 2 sessions case was disposed of on 18.6.2004. The learned sessions Judge, at the time when the sessions case was pending before it, released the golden ingot in favour of the 2nd respondent. 3. According to the revision petitioner, he was not aware of the release of disposal of the gold ingot and hence he made an application to get the certified copy of the judgment only on 4.1.2005, even though the sessions case was disposed of on 18.6.2004. Thus according to the revision petitioner he obtained the certified copy of the judgment in the above sessions case only on 16.3.2005. Even thereafter he had preferred the appeal before the Sessions Court, Trivandrum only on 1.12.2008 and there was a delay of 4 ½ years. Thus he constrained to file a belated appeal with a petition to condone the said delay. The learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.3938/08, dismissed the petitions to condone the delay and consequently the appeal was also dismissed as per the order dated 19.12.2008 in Crl.A.No.952/08 and thus the Crl. R.P.No.2126 of 2010 3 petitioner approached this court. At the time of filing the above revision petition also, there was a delay of 78 days. By an order dated 15.7.2010 the said delay was condoned. Thus this revision petition came up for admission on today. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, dismissing the petition for condoning the delay is an elaborate order and considered the entire facts involved in the case. From the above order, it can be seen that the present revision petitioner was examined as PW7 on 2.6.2004 in S.C.No.1289/01 of the Court of Asst. Sessions Judge, Attingal and finally the above sessions case was disposed of on 18.6.2004, that means the case was disposed of, within 16 days from the date of examination of the revision petitioner as PW7, who is not a stranger to the sessions case. He is a gold merchant and he is also a witness in the sessions case and according to him it is from his possession the gold ingot was seized by the police. Crl. R.P.No.2126 of 2010 4 After the seizure of the gold ingot, no claim was raised by the revision petitioner before any forum or authority. Even if the seizure was an illegal one or it was forcibly taken, the revision petitioner could have invoked appropriate procedure at proper time but that was not done. However, even at the time of examination of revision petitioner as PW7, he did not raise any claim or preferred any petition for the release of the material objects in favour of him. 4. Apart from all the above facts, even though the petitioner has got a certified copy of the judgment in the above sessions case on 16.3.2005, he preferred the appeal only at the expiry of 4 ½ years time. No sufficient and reasonable explanation was given, for that much delay in preferring the appeal. As I indicated earlier, in filing the revision petition also there was a delay of 78 days. 5. From the above lethargic and negligent approach of the revision petitioner itself, it is clear that he had no bonafide claim with respect to the gold ingot. From the materials available on Crl. R.P.No.2126 of 2010 5 record, it can be seen that the material objects were released in favour of the 2nd respondent, much earlier, at whose instance the crime was registered and the police seized the gold ingot during the investigation. In the light of the above facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that there is no merit in the revision petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/