THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12984 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the order dated 24.08.2011 passed in Crl.M.P.No.770 of 2011 by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, filed under Section 127 of the Criminal Rules of Practice read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay of 81 days in preferring the revision against the order dated 05.01.2011 passed by the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.24 of 2011. Learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application with the following reason. “The petitioner has stated three different reasons for condoning the delay of 81 days in preferring the revision. The first reason is that the Revision papers were missing in the office of his counsel, the second reason is that he was out of station for a month because of preoccupation with his works, and the third reason is that there was delay in obtaining copy applications. None of the reasons are sufficient to condone the delay. There is negligence on the part of the petitioner in preferring the revision within stipulated time. The petitioner should have been careful and diligent enough to prosecute his case. Therefore, I do not see any sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 81 days in preferring the revision.” This Court perused the entire record and also heard the arguments. The reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge is quite in accordance with law. Without giving any sufficient reason, the petitioner filed the application with a delay of 81 days. Hence, this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the lower appellate Court. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions reported in State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO[1], N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy[2] and Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & another v. Mst. Katiji & others[3]. This Court is also fully aware of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court. In the said judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the most important thing needs to be taken into consideration is the observation made by the Supreme Court in State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO (1 supra), that “what constitutes sufficient cause cannot be laid down by hard-and-fast rules”. This Court is of the view that in the present case, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is in accordance with law and needs no interference. The Criminal Petition is, therefore, dismissed. _______________ (RAJA ELANGO, J) 15th December 2011 RRB [1] (2005) 3 SCC 752 [2] (1998) 7 SCC 123 [3] AIR 1987 SC 1353