CRL MP NO.13006 of 2025 in CRL A.SR. NO.38150 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-09-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL MP No. 13006 of 2025 AND CRL A SR NO. 38150 OF 2025 1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai city-I, Chennai. (crime No.8/AC/2007/CC-I) Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Tr.W.JAYASEELAN Assistant executive engineer, (electrical), O AND M, perambur sub- division, chennai electricity distribution circle, north, chennai. now Assistant executive engineer/shift/230 KV SS, vyasarpadi, CEDC/North, chennai. Respondent(s) CRL A SR No. 38150 of 2025 1. The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Appellant(s) Vs 1. W.Jayaseelan Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL MP NO.13006 of 2025 in CRL A.SR. NO.38150 OF 2025 For Petitioner : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan ORDER The State had preferred an appeal against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in C.C.No.11 of 2011 dated 30.04.2024. There was a delay of 320 days in preferring the appeal. 2.The respondent had filed his counter submitting that the delay of 320 days not properly explained. During trial, on the side of the prosecution, 15 witnesses examined and 22 documents marked and the respondent had marked 26 documents and after examining the evidence and materials the trial Court had rightly acquitted the respondent. Now by filing this appeal, the stigma on account of pendency of the case against the respondent would still persist. Further, the respondent is an Assistant Executive Engineer in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and his service prospects would get affected and his service benefits would be denied. He further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master and Others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another, wherein in paragraph 13, the Hon’ble https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL MP NO.13006 of 2025 in CRL A.SR. NO.38150 OF 2025 Apex Court had held that unless there is reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort taken by the prosecution, the delay can be condoned, in the absence of the same, the delay cannot be accepted mechanically. 3.The learned Additional Public prosecutor referred to the affidavit filed by the petitioner/appellant submitted that the trial Court judgment was rendered on 30.04.2024, certified copy applied on 10.05.2024 and it was received on 26.06.2024. After getting opinion, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti- Corruption had moved the proposal to the Principal Secretary to Government, Energy Department, Secretariat on 16.09.2024 and the proposal was sent to the State Public Prosecutor office on 24.01.2025. The judgment and the materials were perused and thereafter opinion received. The Principal Secretary to Government by letter dated 18.02.2025 concurred with the petitioner's proposal to file an appeal. The Public Prosecutor office had preferred the appeal and the appeal was filed on 12.06.2025 and the delay has been explained. 4.In view of the same, the delay stands condoned and the petition is ordered. Page 3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL MP NO.13006 of 2025 in CRL A.SR. NO.38150 OF 2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL MP NO.13006 of 2025 in CRL A.SR. NO.38150 OF 2025 M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J. rsi 5.The contention of the respondent on merits can be considered at the time of admission of appeal. 02.09.2025 rsi Note: Registry is directed to number the Criminal Appeal, if it is otherwise in order. CRL MP No. 13006 of 2025 AND CRL A SR NO. 38150 OF 2025 02.09.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis