Telangana High Court
Mohammed Anwar Khan Thotu vs The State Of Telangana on 4 April, 2025
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
IA No.1 of 2025
In/And
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.267 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
Criminal Revision Case No.267 of 2025 is filed by the
petitioner/accused aggrieved by the judgement dated
08.10.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2015, on the file of
the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar wherein and whereby the
conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/
accused by the learned VIII Additional Assistant Sessions
Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar, Hyderabad on
18.11.2014 vide judgment in SC No.340 of 2014
sentencing the petitioner/accused to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-,
in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three
months for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC
was confirmed.
2. IA No.1 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner in Criminal
Revision Case No.267 of 2025 praying the Court to
condone the delay of 2,238 days in filing the present
criminal revision case.
3. Heard Sri Mohd.Ashraf Ali, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
4. As seen from the affidavit filed in support of IA No.1
of 2025, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
since the mother of the petitioner died, the petitioner could
not attend the appellate Court and in his absence the
appellate Court passed the judgment and even he does not
know the fate of the appeal. Thus stating, he prayed to
condone the delay of 2,238 days in preferring the present
criminal revision case.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor vehemently opposed the present criminal
revision case as well as the interlocutory application, filed
to condone the delay, mainly contending that inordinate
delay in preferring the revision cannot be condoned since
the grounds urged by the petitioner have no force. Thus
stating, he prayed to dismiss the interlocutory application
and to reject the criminal revision case.
6. The proposition of law is very clear that to condone
the delay the petitioner has to offer sufficient cause for not
filing the appeal earlier and the said cause must establish
that because of some event or circumstance arising before
limitation expired, it was not possible to file the revision
within time. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition
precedent for exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction
vested in the Court by Section 5 of Limitation Act.
7. This Court perused the material on record and heard
the rival contentions advanced on either side. The main
ground urged on behalf of the petitioner seeking to
condone the delay of 2,238 days is that in view of demise of
his mother, the petitioner could not attend the appellate
Court and that he even don't know the name of his counsel
in the appeal and also the result of the appeal and that in
his absence the appellate Court pronounced the judgment.
The above grounds show the negligence on the part of the
petitioner since he being the appellant, it is his bounden
duty to follow-up his case and that the above explanation
offered by the petitioner cannot be accepted. Further, the
above explanation appears to be not sufficient cause
warranting this Court to condone the delay. In such
circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the
present interlocutory application, filed to condone the
delay, is liable to be dismissed.
8. In the result, IA No.1 of 2025 is dismissed and
consequently, the Criminal Revision Case No.267 of 2025
is rejected.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand
closed.
____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Dated: 04.04.2025
Abb
