Crl.M.P(MD)No.952 of 2025 i BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 22.09.2025 Delivered on : 26.09.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR Crl.M.P(MD)No.952 of 2025 in CRL.A(MD).SR No.2012 of 2025 State of Tamil Nadu rep.by the Inspector of Police, Pettaivaithalai Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District. Crime No.89 of 2021. : Petitioner Vs. 1.Sathishkumar 2.Lakshmi Narayanan @ Dhilipkumar 3.Samiravi @ Ravikumar 4.Gunasekaran @ Siva 5.Rajkumar 6.Prakash 7.Sureshkumar @ Suresh 8.Manikandan 9.Rajendhiran @ Raja 10.Nagarajan @ Nagaraj : Respondents 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P(MD)No.952 of 2025 i Prayer : This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 322 days in filing the criminal appeal against the acquittal judgment passed in S.C.No.51 of 2022, dated 27.10.2023 on the file of the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli District. For Petitioner : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For Respondents : Mr.T.Eashwar, for R1 & R2 and R4 to R8. : Mr.T.J.Ebenezer Charles, for R3 and R9. : No Appearance, for R10. ORDER This Petition has been filed to seeking orders to condone the delay of 322 days in filing the criminal appeal challenging judgment of acquittal made in S.C.No.51 of 2022, dated 27.10.2023 on the file of the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli District. 2. It is evident from the records that the appellant/police, after completing the investigation in the case in Crime No.89 of 2021 on the file 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P(MD)No.952 of 2025 i of the Pettaivaithalai Police Station, laid the final report against ten accused for the offence under Sections 120(B)(1), 395 r/w 397, 395 r/w 109 IPC. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge passed the judgment, dated 27.10.2023 holding that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, acquitted them under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Challenging the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal along with the above application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3.The petitioner's case canvassed in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation petition is that they have obtained certified copy of the judgment on 30.11.2023; that they have obtained opinion to file the appeal from the Special Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli on 11.01.2024; that subsequently a proposal was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Tiruchirappalli District on 08.05.2024 and the Director General of Police Head Quarters, Chennai sent the proposal to the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai on 11.07.2024 and thereafter, the Government sent the proposal to the Office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras, vide letter, dated 31.07.2024 and legal 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P(MD)No.952 of 2025 i opinion that the above case is a fit case for filing the appeal was sent vide letter, dated 19.11.2024; that the Inspector of Police, Jeeyapuram Circle after joining duty on 09.09.2024 met the Public Prosecutor and submitted the relevant records, that thereafter, appeal along with petition for leave and petition for delay condonation were filed and that the delay of 322 days in preferring the appeal is neither willful nor wanton. 4. Despite posted finally, the respondents 1, 2, 4 to 8 have not filed their counter affidavit. The respondents 3 and 9 have filed counter affidavit raising objections and further stated that the affidavit does not contain any explanation for the enormous delay of 322 days; that there is absolutely no evidence against the accused 3 and 9 to prove the charges; that the delay was not explained properly and the administrative delay without bonafide reasons are insufficient to condone the delay and that therefore, the above petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the prosecution examined as many as 57 witnesses and exhibited 102 documents and after an elaborate trial, the learned Sessions Judge, without considering the material aspect of the case, has proceeded to acquitted the 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P(MD)No.952 of 2025 i accused. He would further submit that the appellant/Police has recovered Rs.1,65,00,000/- for the present case and that the prosecution may be given an opportunity to prosecute the appeal challenging the acquittal judgment. 6.The learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 9 would submit that the petitioner has not given any reason or explanation for the delay of 322 days in filing the appeal and the reason of administrative delay is not sufficient to condone the delay. No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 9, administrative delay by itself is not a reason or explanation sufficient enough to condone the delay. 7.In the present case, the prosecution has examined 57 witnesses, produced 102 documents, and seized Rs. 1,65,00,000/-, which was remanded to the Court. While the reasons cited for delay in filing the appeal, namely awaiting legal opinion from the Public Prosecutor and higher Police officials, may not be sufficient, this Court, considering the case's facts and circumstances and the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), deems it fit to condone the delay and allow the prosecution to proceed with the appeal. However, given the significant delay, this Court finds it appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner/appellant. 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P(MD)No.952 of 2025 i 8.In the result, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition will be allowed on payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) by the petitioner, to the Legal Services Authority attached to this Bench, on or before 13.10.2025, failing which, the petition shall stand dismissed automatically. 9.Post the matter on 14.10.2025, ' for reporting compliance'. 26.09.2025 NCC : Yes : No Index : Yes : No Internet : Yes : No das To 1.I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli District. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P(MD)No.952 of 2025 i K.MURALI SHANKAR,J. das Pre-delivery order made in Crl.M.P(MD)No.952 of 2025 in CRL.A(MD).SR No.2012 of 2025 26.09.2025 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis