THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.35 of 2020
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners/ appellants aggrieved by order dated 28.08.2019 in Crl.M.P. No.644 of 2019 in unnumbered Crl.A. No.___of 2019 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, in dismissing the petition filed by them for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.
2. The case of the petitioners was that aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.03.2019 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sathupalli in CC No.162 of 2011 acquitting the respondents 1 to 5 for the offences under Sections 147, 345 and 324 read with 149 IPC, the petitioners, who were the de facto complainant and the injured, preferred the appeal. The judgment was pronounced on 20.03.2019. The appeal ought to have been filed within 30 days i.e. on or before 19.04.2019, but they preferred the appeal with a delay of 51 days and prayed to condone the delay.
::2:: Dr.GRR,J
Crlrc No.35 of 2020
3. The respondents 1 to 5 filed counter submitting that the petitioners and two others attempted to take away the life of the respondents and committed an offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 IPC. The same was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sathupalli vide SC No.393 of 2012. As a counter blast to the same, the petitioners filed a false case against the respondents 1 to 5 in collusion with respondent No.6 and the trial court acquitted both the cases. The appeal was filed only to harass the respondents, as the wife of the 1st respondent won the Gram Panchayat elections twice consecutively and the supporter of the petitioners had lost the same and unable to digest the defeat, they were filing the false cases. The petitioners failed to explain the day to day delay as required under law and prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. Considering the pleadings of both the parties and upon hearing both the counsel, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam dismissed the petition observing that the reason given by the petitioners that they suffered with sunstroke without filing any medical prescriptions to show that there was serious illness on account of the sunstroke, did not appear to be bonafide and that as the conduct ::3:: Dr.GRR,J Crlrc No.35 of 2020 of the parties would show that the criminal proceedings were being resorted to settle the political scores, considered that the delay was not properly explained and dismissed the petition.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners-appellants preferred this revision contending that the court below erred in not noticing that there was no abnormal delay as in the judgment relied by the court while dismissing the petition. The court below erred in not following the established principle that the courts should take a liberal, pragmatic and justice oriented approach while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay. The petitioners were agriculturists and residents of a remote village and it was peak summer, due to which they suffered sunstroke and they could not engage counsel to prefer the appeal against the acquittal judgment. The court below ought to have exercised its discretion for condoning the delay of few days and prayed to set aside the order dated 28.08.2019 passed in Crl.MP No.644 of 2019 in unnumbered criminal appeal on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam.
6. Perused the record. As the petitioners are none other than the de facto complainant and the injured and they were aggrieved by the ::4:: Dr.GRR,J Crlrc No.35 of 2020 acquittal of respondents 1 to 5 by the trial court for the offences under Sections 147, 345, 324 read with 149 IPC and sought to prefer an appeal and that there was delay of only a short duration of (51) days in preferring the appeal, the lower appellate court ought to have condoned the delay. In the judgment relied by the lower appellate court in Esha Bhattarcharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others (Civil Appeal Nos.8183-8184 of 2013) also it was held that there was a distinction between inordinate delay and delay of short duration or few days. As the doctrine of prejudice would be attracted when there was an inordinate delay and the delay of short duration needs no strict approach but a liberal approach, it is considered fit to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned order.
7. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed on condition of petitioners/appellants paying costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad within a period of ten (10) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and the order dated 28.08.2019 passed in Crl.M.P. No.644 of 2019 passed in unnumbered Criminal Appeal ::5:: Dr.GRR,J Crlrc No.35 of 2020 No.___of 2019 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, is set aside and the delay in preferring the criminal appeal is condoned.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J November 08, 2022 KTL