APHC010380652019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA I.A.No.1 of 2019 IN / AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1204/2019 Between: POTHANABOINA UDAY KIRAN RAJU, S/O. VERAIAH, 1ST LANE SRI RAMANAGAR, MAHATMA GANDHI INNERRING ROAD, BESIDE CHILLIS RESTAURANT, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. P SHABNA, W/O. UDAY KIRAN RAJU R/O. D.NO. 28-2-126, 3RD STREET SRINIVASNAGAR, MYPADU GATE, NELLORE 2. THE PUBLIC PROSEUCOTR, SHIGH COURT OF AP, REP THROUGH SHO II TOWN POLICE NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TATA SINGAIAH GOUD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SURESH BABU CHAPALA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3. LEGAL AID The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The instant Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C has been filed by the Petitioner seeking to set aside the Order dated 16.03.2018 passed in MC No.78 of 2017 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Nellore. 2 2. I.A.No.1 of 2019 is filed by the Petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 511 days in filing the above Criminal Revision Case. 3. Heard Sri Tata Singaiah Goud, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Ch.Suresh, learned Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.1. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, unless the delay of 511 days in filing the revision is condoned, the Petitioner cannot defend his case and the said delay is neither wilful nor deliberate. 5. Learned Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.1 would submit that there is no explanation given by the Petitioner for the inordinate delay of 511 days in filing the revision. In the absence of any plausible explanation, the delay cannot be condoned. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. This Court finds considerable force in the submission made on behalf of Respondent No.1. It is well settled that, while courts adopt a liberal approach in matters relating to condonation of delay, such discretion cannot be exercised in a mechanical manner. The Petitioner is required to demonstrate “sufficient cause” for not preferring the revision within the prescribed period of limitation. 7. In the present case, the delay of 511 days is undoubtedly substantial. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition reveals that no convincing or satisfactory explanation has been offered to condone the delay. The Petitioner has failed to establish that the delay 3 was due to circumstances beyond his control. In the absence of any bona fide and sufficient cause, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the Petitioner. 8. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2019 is dismissed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is also dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:01.04.2026 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA I.A.No.1 of 2019 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 1204/2019 Dt.01.04.2026 Dinesh