Madras High Court
M/S.Tanfac Industries Ltd vs The State Rep.By on 11 March, 2025
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.R.C.No.1134 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Criminal Revision Case No.1134 of 2023
M/s.Tanfac Industries Ltd.,
Rep.by the Authorized Signatory
S.Sakthi Priyan,
1st Floor, 66, Sir C.P.Ramaswamy Road,
Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. ... Petitioner
..vs..
1. The State Rep.by
Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Vepery, Chennai.
2. M/s.Siddarth Chemical Corporation,
Rep.by its Managing Partner,
Mr.S.Kamalakar, No.45-A, Barnaby Road,
1st Floor, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.
3. S.Kamalakar
4. Ajit Sivan ... Respondents
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 read with 401
Cr.P.C., to set aside the dismissal order passed by the learned Principal
Page No.1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 02:35:09 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.1134 of 2023
Sessions Judge at Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.295 of 2023 in
C.A.Sr.No.26756 of 2022 on 13.03.2023 and further direct the learned
Principal Sessions Judge to condone the delay of 1197 days and to
dispose of the Criminal Appeal on merits.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.C.Swamy
For Respondents : Mr.S.Sugendran
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Mr.G.Ravikumar for R3 and R4
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the
order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge at
Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.295 of 2023 in C.A.Sr.No.26756 of 2022 and
consequently, to direct the Principal Sessions Judge to condone the delay
of 1197 days and to dispose of the Criminal Appeal on merits.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-
Company is the de-facto complainant and based on the complaint given
by the petitioner, a case in C.C.No.16396 of 2003 was registered against
the respondents 2 to 3 herein/accused 1 to 3. After fullfledged trial, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 02:35:09 pm )
trial Court acquitted the accused persons on 03.09.2019 during the peak
of the Covid-19 Pandemic. The petitioner-Company was not aware of the
disposal of the above case immediately. Though the parties were
conducting proceedings before this Court in C.S.No.129 of 2002 and
O.S.A.No.272 to 275 of 2019, the judgment of acquittal dated
03.09.2019 came to the knowledge of the petitioner and at that time, it
was the Covid-19 pandemic period. He further submitted that since the
case in C.C.No.16393 of 2003 is a clear case of cheating evidence by
documents, the petitioner-Company was on the impression that the Police
might have taken an appeal against the acquittal, however, the
prosecution failed to file an appeal and the petitioner, as an aggrieved
party, preferred the appeal with delay after getting legal opinion from the
counsel. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor
wanton.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that during
the Pandemic period, the Hon’ble Apex Court has granted exemption
for initiating legal proceedings. However, the learned Sessions Judge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 02:35:09 pm )
failed to consider the exemption granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 02:35:09 pm )
calculated the entire period of delay, including the Pandemic period and
dismissed the petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 submitted
that the petitioner-Company has no locus standi to file an appeal against
the order of acquittal. The appellate jurisdiction to file appeal against the
acquittal, vests with the first respondent-Police only, as the cognizance of
offences was taken by the trial Court on the basis of the charge-sheet
filed by first respondent-Police. He further submitted that the judgment
of acquittal was delivered on 03.09.2019 and appeal against the said
judgment ought to have been filed on or before 02.10.2019. However, the
petitioner-Company failed to file the appeal in time. Later, taking
advantage of the Pandemic situation, they filed the appeal with delay of
1197 days and also they have not given any valid reason for filing the
petition with delay and hence, this revision has to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 02:35:09 pm )
6. Admittedly, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 in
C.C.No.16396 of 2013 and after full-fledged trial, the said case ended in
acquittal on 03.09.2019. Challenging the said judgment of acquittal, the
prosecution has not filed any appeal, however, as an aggrieved party, the
petitioner-de-facto complainant has filed the appeal with delay of 1197
days, which was dismissed by the Court below.
7. On a perusal of the entire records, it is seen that the judgment of
acquittal was delivered prior to Pandemic situation i.e., on 03.09.2019.
As per the Limitation Act, the appeal ought to have been filed within 30
days from the date of delivery of the judgment i.e., on 02.10.2019. No
doubt, the judgment dated 03.09.2019 has been pronounced even before
the date on which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has given
exemption to the parties in filing the cases before the Courts. The
exemption has been given for the period from 05.03.2020 till 28.02.2022.
As per the defence, the petitioner had sufficient time to file the appeal
even before and after the exemption period, but he has not availed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 02:35:09 pm )
same. However, it is seen from the records that there are no materials to
show that the petitioner-de-facto complainant was very much available at
the time of delivering the judgment i.e., on 03.09.2019 and he had not
taken immediate steps for filing appeal against the judgment of acquittal.
8. In the instant case, the cognizance was taken on the basis of the
charge-sheet filed by the first respondent-Police. Normally, in criminal
cases, the de-facto complainant only depends on the prosecution and as a
lay-man, he may not be aware of proceedings of the case, when the
prosecution proceeded with the case. In this case, as against the judgment
of acquittal, the prosecution has not filed any appeal, however, the
petitioner, as an aggrieved party filed, the appeal with delay and
certainly, it will take time to get the legal opinion and to file the appeal
by the de-facto complainant. Further, the main defence taken by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that after filing the appeal with delay,
they have filed the additional affidavit, but the learned Sessions Judge
failed to receive the same, however, in the order the learned Sessions
Judge mentioned about the additional affidavit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 02:35:09 pm )
9. In the light of the above facts and the grievance expressed by
the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order dated
13.03.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.295 of 2023 in Crl.A.Sr.No.26756 of
2022 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside and the matter
is remitted back to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai for
fresh consideration. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, is directed to
take the additional affidavit on file, which was already filed by the
petitioner and proceed with the case and dispose of the matter, on merits
and in accordance with law, and if necessity arises, take evidence.
10, With the above observations and directions, this Criminal
Revision Petition is disposed of.
11.03.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Case Citation : Yes / No
ms
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 02:35:09 pm )
To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge,
Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Vepery, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 02:35:09 pm )
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
ms
11.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/03/2025 02:35:09 pm )
