IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 432 of 2011() ----------------------------------- CRL.MP.NO.1142/2010 IN CRA.208/2010 OF SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER(S): IST RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- DR.K.K.SREENIVASAN, S/O.NARAYANA PODUVAL AGED 55 YEARS, 'GULMOHUR', NEAR POST OFFICE, KANNAPURAM, P.O.CHERUKUNNU, 670 301, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.M.SATHEESH RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS ------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SHO OF KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION, P.O.CHERUKUNNU, 670 301. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.432 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 11th day of February, 2011 ORDER Learned Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent. 2. Annexure-A6, order dated November 19, 2010 of the court of learned Sessions Judge, Thalassery on Crl.M.P.No.1142 of 2010 is under challenge. That is a petition filed by the first respondent to condone the delay in filing the appeal against acquittal of petitioner and others. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that no justifiable reason is stated in the affidavit in support of Crl.M.P.No.1142 of 2010 to condone the delay. It is stated that the person who has sworn the affidavit was not competent to state about reason for delay and that affidavit does not contain particulars as to when the stamp paper was called for and when it was remitted etc. Learned counsel also has a contention that since copy of the judgment was obtained by the de facto complainant but the appeal is preferred by the State, it was not open to the State to seek condonation of delay on the ground stated in the petition. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. It is seen that Annexure-A6 is not a speaking order making reference to the various contentions advanced by the Crl.M.C.No.432 of 2011 -: 2 :- petitioner. Instead, learned Sessions Judge has only stated that sufficient cause is shown and that the affidavit can be accepted which in my view is not sufficient. Learned Sessions Judge has to advert to the contentions raised by petitioner against acceptability of the affidavit in support of Crl.M.P.No.1142 of 2010 and pass appropriate orders. I make it clear that if so advised, it is open to the first respondent to file additional affidavit if any, explaining the reason for delay. Resultantly this petition is allowed and Annexure-A6, order is set aside. Crl.M.P.No.1142 of 2010 is remitted to the Court of learned Sessions Judge for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made above. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-