THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1683 OF 2015 ORDER: Assailing the order dated 17.04.2015 passed in Crl.M.P. No.229 of 2014 in unnumbered Criminal Appeal of 2014 made by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner under Rule 127 of Criminal Rules of Practice to condone the delay of 92 days in preferring the Criminal Appeal, revision petitioner preferred this revision case. 2. The parties are being referred to as per their positions before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience and clarity. 3. As seen from the record, basing on the report given by the defacto complainant, a case in crime No.80 of 2011 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (b), 465, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet and the same is registered as CC No.24 of 2012. At the culmination of trial, having considered the material placed before it, the trial Court came to conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case and accordingly, acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 03.03.2014 and since prosecution did not prefer appeal, the defacto complainant filed the criminal appeal along with delay condonation application under Rule 127 of Criminal Rules of Practice to condone the delay of 92 days and at the culmination of enquiry, the same is dismissed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. 4. The grounds urged by the revision petitioner are that the order of the appellate Court is contrary to law, probabilities of the case and it failed to exercise jurisdiction vested with it and dismissed the petition without assigning proper and justifiable reasons and the appellate Court ought to have seen that the petitioner assigned sufficient reasons to condone the delay of 92 days, and with other formal grounds, prayed to allow the petition. 2 SUN, J Crlrc_1683_2015 5. Heard Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor who is representing state. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he could not trace out the whereabouts of respondents 2 to 6. So, to meet ends of justice, this Court requested Sri G.John Deva Sundar, learned counsel, who is present in the court to pursue record and submit arguments on behalf of the respondents 2 to 6. Upon perusing the material on record, he submitted his arguments. 6. On hearing both sides and upon perusing the material including the impugned order dated 17.04.2015 passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, the point for consideration is: Whether the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram is sustainable in facts and law or it suffers from any material illegality? 7. It is not in dispute that basing on the report of the defacto complainant a case in crime No.80 of 2011 was registered and after completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet and the trial Court has taken cognizance of the same of the offence under Sections 120 B, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC against the accused and at the culmination of trial, the learned judicial magistrate of first Class, Srungavarapukota passed judgment dated 03.03.2014 in C.C. No.24 of 2012 by acquitting the respondent Nos.1 to 5 of the said offences. Admittedly, the prosecution has not preferred the appeal, within the statutory period of limitation. Therefore, assailing the said judgment of acquittal, the defacto complainant filed Criminal Appeal along with the delay condonation petition in Crl.M.P. No.229 of 2014 under Rule 127 of Criminal Rules of Practice. The reasons assigned by the defacto complainant are, he approached the concerned Station House Officer and requested to prefer the appeal as he has good grounds to succeed. But, the Station House Officer, Jami having promised to prefer appeal failed to do 3 SUN, J Crlrc_1683_2015 so and as such, the delay is occurred. Admittedly, the law of limitation helps the vigilant but not the negligent and since the appeal is not preferred within the statutory period of limitation by the prosecution, after obtaining certified copies, the defacto complainant preferred the appeal along with petition under Rule 127 of Criminal Rules of Practice. It is established principle of law that liberal approach must be adopted while considering the petition which is filed seeking condonation of delay. 8 The delay is of only 92 days and the reasons assigned by the defacto complainant are found convincing. Though it is bounded duty of the State to take steps, it failed to do so. As such, after obtaining certified copies, the defacto complainant preferred the appeal along with petition. The Learned appellate Court went wrong in saying that the petitioner did not file affidavit of the Station House Officer, Jami to show that he had approached the Station House Officer, Jami. 9. It is established principle of law that day to day delay need not be explained and at the same time, sufficient cause must be shown by the petitioner and that liberal approach must be adopted while deciding the petition filed seeking condonation of delay as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pathapati Subba Rao (Died) Lrs Vs Special Deputy Collector (La)1. 10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court came to conclusion that the revision petitioner had shown valid and sufficient reasons to condone the delay of 92 days in preferring the criminal appeal against the judgment dated 03.03.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srungavarapukota in CC No.24 of 2012. 11. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed by setting aside the order dated 17.04.2015 in Crl.M.P. No.229 of 2014 in unnumbered Criminal 12024 SCC Online SC 153 4 SUN, J Crlrc_1683_2015 Appeal of 2014 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J 07.08.2026 knl