CRL MP No.5040 of 2026 __________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL MP No. 5040 of 2026 in Crl.A.SR.No.13816 of 2026 The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Vaduvoor Police Station, Thiruvarur District. Cr.No.229/2023. ...Petitioner Vs Sivakumar S/o.Sethurajan, East Street, Kattakudi, Mannargudi Taluk. ...Respondent Prayer: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 334 days in filing the Appeal against the judgment passed in Sessions Case No.150/2023, Dated 02.01.2025 on the file of Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur District. For Petitioner: Mr.A.Amarnath Counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL MP No.5040 of 2026 __________ For Respondent: Mr.S.Nirmal Aditya ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.) This Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking condonation of delay of 334 days in filing the Criminal Appeal against acquittal of the respondent in S.C.No.150 of 2023 dated 02.01.2025 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur. 2. The respondent was tried by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur, for offences under Sections 294(b) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was acquitted by judgment dated 02.01.2025. 3. The State has not filed the appeal in time, and the reasons stated by the Inspector of Police in his Affidavit are that there were administrative delays caused for getting requisite approvals from the authorities concerned, and therefore the delay is neither willful nor wanton. The relevant portion of the Affidavit reads as follows: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL MP No.5040 of 2026 __________ ‘2. I submit that in this case the judgment was passed by the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur in S.C.No.150 of 2023 dated 02.01.2025. The certified copy of the judgment was applied on 04.01.2025 and same obtained on 22.01.2025. I further submit that after obtaining the certified copy of the judgment, an opinion was sought from the Public Prosecutor and Government Pleader, Tiruvarur District and he offered his opinion for fit appeal on 24.01.2025. After obtaining the opinion for filing appeal in this case, the same was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Thiruvarur District dated 10.04.2025. Further, this case was sent to the Director General of Police, Head of Police Force, Chennai Vide Na.Ka.No.B1/E-153/Ka.Tu.Ta/ Ma.Ma/2025 dated 28.04.2025 and he sent a proposal to the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai, vide Lr.Rc.No.10341092/Crime 1(2)/2025 dated 16.06.2025 Subsequently, the Government sent the proposal to the office of the Public Prosecutor, High court, Madras vide Govt. Lr.No.e-10819405/Cts- VII/2025-2, dated 04.11.2025 and the same was received by the Public Prosecutor's office, High court, Madras on 04.11.2025. After perusing the entire records, the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras opinioned that this is a fit case for filling an appeal against acquittal and accordingly sent a Legal Opinion to the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home (Courts-VII) Department, Secretariat, Chennai vide Opinion No.447 of 2025, dated 10.11.2025. 3. I humbly submit that, after my joining as Inspector of Police, Mannargudi Taluk Police Station & i/c Vaduvoor Police Station, Thiruvarur District on 27.11.2025, I have immediately took up this task, collected all the relevant papers in connection with the filing of the said appeal and appeared before the Learned Public Prosecutor, at the Office of the Public Prosecutor situated at Madras High Court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL MP No.5040 of 2026 __________ Buildings on 10.12.2025 with records and met the Learned Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras, for preparation of Memorandum of Grounds, Petition for Leave, Condonation of delay, Index to Typed Set, etc., and accordingly, an appeal against acquittal is being filed on the Hon'ble High Court, Madras.’ 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the delay has not been properly explained; that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that administrative delay cannot be a reason to condone the delay; that the presumption of innocence of the accused has been confirmed by the judgment of acquittal; that since the respondent has already suffered an ordeal of long trial, the condonation of delay would cause irreparable loss and hardship; and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. The reasons for the delay, as could be seen from the above extracted portion, are that the Inspector of Police had sought for opinion from the Public Prosecutor and Government Pleader, Tiruvaur District; that the opinion obtained was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur District; that thereafter, it was sent to the Director General of Police, Head of Police Force, Chennai; that a proposal was sent to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL MP No.5040 of 2026 __________ Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai, who ultimately forwarded a proposal to the State Public Prosecutor; and that the State Public Prosecutor had recommended filing of an appeal on 10.11.2025. 6. We are of the view that the reasons stated by the State for the delay are not justified. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that administrative delay would not be a ground to condone such enormous delay. This principle would apply to a greater extent in a case where the appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the presumption of innocence of the accused has been confirmed by the trial Court. It is the case of the respondent that the judgment of acquittal is justified and there is no reason to entertain the appeal. 7. In fact, Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for an appeal against a judgment of acquittal, does not contemplate any such elaborate procedure that has been followed in this case. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL MP No.5040 of 2026 __________ 8. We cannot examine the merits of the case at this stage, which we propose to do while considering the petition seeking leave to file the appeal. Even though the delay has not been properly explained and we express our disapproval to the lethargic attitude of the authorities concerned, there are multiple reasons which deter us from dismissing this petition. It is well settled that when substantial justice is pitted against technical considerations, the former should prevail. That apart, if the appeal has merits and there is a possibility of reversing the judgment of acquittal, the petitioner’s default or lethargy should not affect the interest of the victim and the cause of justice. 9. However, the State is expected to act diligently in matters of this nature, as the right of the accused for speedy disposal of the case against him is valuable. Therefore, we are inclined to impose costs on the State. Accordingly, the delay of 334 days is condoned and this Miscellaneous Petition is ordered on payment of costs of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) by the State to the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Court within a period of ten (10) days from today. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL MP No.5040 of 2026 __________ 10. Subject to the petitioner filing proof of payment of costs, the Registry is directed to number the petition seeking leave to file an appeal, if it is otherwise in order, and list the same for hearing. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 06-07-2026 Issue order copy by 08.07.2026 ars To The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL MP No.5040 of 2026 __________ DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J. ars CRL MP No. 5040 of 2026 in Crl.A.No.13816 of 2026 06-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis