IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 193 of 2001() --------------------------------------- CRMP.1630/1999 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI, M.C. NO.27/99 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE , MANJERI. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------- T. CHANDRABABU, S/O. NAGAN, KOTTUPATTA, NARUKARA, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER ------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM KOCHI 31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.MP. NO.813/2001 IN CRL.RP. NO.193/2001 DISMISSED 02.06.2009 SD/- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.NO.193 OF 2001 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009 ORDER Petitioner is one of the sureties of the accused in ST No.52 of 1994 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri. As the accused failed to turn up as undertaken in the bail bond, learned Chief Judicial magistrate cancelled the bail, initiated proceedings against the sureties including the petitioner under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and imposed penalty on them. After the time prescribed, petitioner and another filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Manjeri. That appeal was accompanied by Crl.M.P.No.1630/99 filed by the counsel to condone the delay of one month and 25 days in filing that appeal. Learned Sessions Judge was of the view that as the application for condonation of delay was preferred by the counsel and not by the party, there is no affidavit by the party and consequently dismissed Crl.M.P.No.1630/99. That order is under challenge in this revision. Learned counsel submits that it is not Crl.R.P.No.193/01 2 necessary that there should have been an application to condone the delay. It is sufficient that “sufficient cause” is shown for condonation of delay. 2. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not require an application for condonation of delay. What is required is that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning the delay. Therefore, learned Sessions Judge was not correct in observing that the application is preferred by the counsel and hence, it cannot be entertained. 3. On the question as to whether sufficient cause is made out, it is stated in the application that petitioner was out of station and hence he could not prefer the appeal in time, there is no reason to think that in spite of being saddled with the liability to pay penalty, petitioner would have, in the absence of sufficient reason, refrained from challenging that order in time. Petitioner would not stand to gain by causing the delay. Hence, I am inclined to think that delay has been properly explained. 4. It is seen that only the petitioner, who is appellant No.2 in the Sessions Court has preferred revision. Appellant No.1 has not challenged the order impugned. Hence, there is Crl.R.P.No.193/01 3 no reason why this Court should interfere with the impugned order to the extent it concerned to appellant No.1. Resultantly, this revision is allowed. The order under challenge to the extent it concerned the petitioner is set aside. Crl.M.P.No.1630/99 to the extent it concerned to the petitioner will stand allowed. Learned Sessions Judge shall take back the Criminal Appeal to the extent it concerned the petitioner, if it is otherwise in order and dispose of the same as provided under law. Petitioner shall appear in the Sessions Court, Manjeri on 30.6.2009. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE Acd Crl.R.P.No.193/01 4