Skip to content


Raghava Reddy Vs. Kanniappan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1958)2MLJ177
AppellantRaghava Reddy
RespondentKanniappan and ors.
Excerpt:
- - but incidentally the point that arises for determination is whether the extreme position taken by the learned advocate for the respondent, namely, that such an application for excusing delay cannot be disposed of without giving notice to the accused in this revision petition filed under section 439, criminal procedure code, is really well founded. but the rule is not an inflexible one and the high court in exceptional cases will depart from it......petition and issue notices to the opposite party and the public prosecutor. in application to excuse delay on the border line the help of the opposite party would be welcome and necessary to resolve the doubt felt in the mind of the judge. the criminal rules of practice al*o do not contemplate issue of notice. section 5 of the limitation act applies to-appeal and certain specified applications to which section 5 is made applicable. section 4.30 criminal procedure code, is not one such specified enactment. there is no limitation prescribed by law for revision. it is however most undesirable that a question of revision should be allowed to be unduly delayed; an application should be made at the earliest possible moment. but the rule is not an inflexible one and the high court in.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Ramaswami, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Case is preferred against the acquittal of the accused. In this case no doubt notice has been given, and I have looked into the application for excusing the delay after hearing the other side. The delay is 23 days after excluding the time for obtaining the copies. The affidavit discloses sufficient circumstances for excusing the delay. But incidentally the point that arises for determination is whether the extreme position taken by the learned advocate for the respondent, namely, that such an application for excusing delay cannot be disposed of without giving notice to the accused in this Revision Petition filed under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, is really well founded. The power of revision can be exercised both suo motu and on being moved on behalf of the aggrieved party. It is a paternal and supervisory jurisdiction. Its object is to correct miscarriage of justice, errors, etc. Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code itself does not contain any provision either express or implied for giving notice to the opposite party Therefore, the learned advocate falls upon Rule 185 of the Criminal Rules of Practice But all that the rule requires is that where a revision petition is preferred after a delay of 90 days, an application to excuse the delay should also accompany it setting forth the circumstance under which the delay should be excused, so that the Tudee might make up his mind as to whether the circumstances are sufficient for him to excuse the delay and admit the Criminal Revision Petition and issue notices to the opposite party and the Public Prosecutor. In application to excuse delay on the border line the help of the opposite party would be welcome and necessary to resolve the doubt felt in the mind of the Judge. The Criminal Rules of Practice al*o do not contemplate issue of notice. Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to-appeal and certain specified applications to which Section 5 is made applicable. Section 4.30 Criminal Procedure Code, is not one such specified enactment. There is no limitation prescribed by law for revision. It is however most undesirable that a question of revision Should be allowed to be unduly delayed; an application should be made at the earliest possible moment. But the rule is not an inflexible one and the High Court in exceptional cases will depart from it. The practice of this Court is regulated by Rule 185. But in special cases this Court entertains such application if the reasons to excuse delay set out in the accompanying petition are acceptable and there are merits otherwise to admit the revision also. The principles will be found elaborately discussed in the A.I.R. Commentaries on the Limitation Act, Third Edition Sections page 171 and following and A.I.R. Commentaries on the Criminal Procedure Code, Fifth Edition, Volume 4, Section 439, N. 42, Limitation for Revision. In this case notice has been issued, probably because, at that stage it felt that the opposite party might be able to assist and throw light upon the contents of the application to excuse the delay. In the event it is found that the circumstances set out make out a case for excusing the delay. Therefore, the application for excusing the delay is allowed and the Criminal Revision Petition making out a case for being, admitted is admitted. The Criminal Revision Cases will be posted in the usual course for disposal according to law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //