IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 46 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.401/2010 Dated 10/03/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------- M.H.HAROON SAIT, MAHAYIRAM PARAMBU, VATTAYAL WARD, THIRUVEMPADI P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.B, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA-688 012. 3. THE CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER, K.S.E.B, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ C.M.Appln.No.11 of 2011 & R.P.No.46 of 2011 in W.A. No. 401 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of March, 2011 ORDER Ravindran, J. C.M.Appln.No.11 of 2011 is filed to condone the delay of 253 days in filing the review petition. Apart from stating that the applicant/deponent is a chronic diabetic and was therefore not in a position to instruct his counsel to take steps to file the review petition, he has not produced any cogent material to substantiate the said statement. In such circumstances, we are not persuaded to accept the explanation offered for the long delay of 253 days in filing the review petition. Further, as the petitioner was not acquitted but the sentence alone was reduced, it cannot be said that he was exonerated of the criminal charge. Therefore, on the merits also the petitioner has not made out a case warranting a detailed examination of the review petition. Therefore, we do not find any ground to condone the delay in filing the review petition. The petition to condone the R.P.No.46 of 2011. - 2 - delay is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the review petition is also dismissed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns