IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1662 of 2010() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/05/2010 IN CRMP 1160/2010 IN CRA.227/2010 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC), ERNAKULAM CC.683/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED :- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- BAIJU, S/O.RAPHY, AGED 29 YEARS,RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.XI.744, PATTALAM DESOM, BISHOP GARDENS, FORT KOCHI. BY ADV. MR.P.P.GENSON RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MATTANCHERY, COCHIN THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.R.VENUGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt V.K.MOHANAN, J. ----------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1662 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June 2010 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred by the 2nd accused in C.C.No.683/2002 in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kochi-5 against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and also against the judgment of the Sessions Court, Ernakulam and the judgment of the Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I, Vacation Judge) dated 6.5.2010 in Crl.Appeal No.227/2010 by which the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner. 2. Going by the impugned judgments, it can be seen that the appeal was dismissed, consequent to the dismissal of the appeal, a petition for condonation of delay filed by the revision petitioner in the appellate court below. It is an admitted fact that there was a delay of 1772 days in filing the above appeal before the lower appellate court. The only Crl.R.P.No.1662 of 2010 : 2 : explanation offered by the revision petitioner to condone the delay is that he was in Hyderabad connected with his employment. Except the above explanation, no materials were adduced and no satisfactory explanation was offered so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the lower appellate court under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act. Thus according to the lower appellate court, the revision petitioner/accused has miserably failed to made out sufficient ground to condone the delay and the reason stated by him is not valid or reasonable one to condone the delay. It is on the basis of the above reason, the lower appellate court dismissed the petition for condoning the delay and consequently dismissed the appeal. 3. When the above revision petition come up for admission, this Court directed the Public Prosecutor to ascertain whether the revision petitioner is involved in any other case. Accordingly, on instruction, the Public Prosecutor submitted that revision petitioner is involved in Crl.R.P.No.1662 of 2010 : 3 : several cases that coming within the limits of Fort Kochi and Mattanchery Police Station, besides the present one. The learned Sessions Judge after considering Annexure-A1 affidavit filed by the revision petitioner in the lower appellate court found that the delay is not properly explained. I have thoroughly gone through the Annexure- A1 affidavit. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming stating the reason for the delay which run to 1772 days. In this Court also, apart from what stated in the Annexure-A1 affidavit, no cases are made to interfere with the such order of the lower appellate court. In the light of the facts and circumstances involved in this case, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the lower appellate court. Accordingly this revision petition is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Jvt