AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the orders of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.77 of 2023 in Criminal Appeal S.R.No.7489 of 2023 dated 08.09.2023, refusing to condone the delay of 64 days in filing the DVC Appeal. The petitioner/husband aggrieved by the order dated 28.03.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2023 in DVC No.75 of 2016 filed criminal appeal with delay of 64 days.
The reason given by the petitioner for delay in filing the appeal is that his mother was suffering from ill-health and the Doctors had advised her to take bed rest. Since he was at his native place, he could not approach his counsel and the delay occurred.
Learned Sessions Judge, having gone through the record found that after the orders were passed in Criminal M.P.No.3 of 2023, the petitioner/husband appeared and attended the Court in the DVC proceedings on four dates i.e., 02.06.2023, 30.06.2023, 07.07.2023, 27.07.2023 and also attended the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.120 of 2018 on 17.04.2023, 27.04.2023, 23.05.2023, 15.06.2023, 28.06.2023, 10.07.2023 and 27.07.2023.
Since the petitioner did not file any medical record and the case record reflected that he had attended the Court on 11 days, the petition filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal was dismissed.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had to take care of his mother, for which reason, he could not approach his counsel and file appeal in time. The documents which were sought to be marked before the trial Court, which are 28 in number are necessary for adjudication of the case. Not permitting to mark the said documents before the trial Court would only result in causing prejudice to the defence of the petitioner/husband. In the larger interest of justice and to give the petitioner/ husband an opportunity of defending himself, the Court ought to have permitted the appeal and consequently directed to mark all the documents.
He relied on the following judgments; i) G.Ramegowda and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore AIR 1998 SC 897, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that delay has to be condoned if sufficient grounds are shown for not filing the appeal in time; ii) K.Swaminatha Naicker v. The District Revenue Officer MANU/TN/0970/1991 and iii) Levaku Pedda Reddamma and others v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma and others MANU/SC/0915/2022, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court permitted leading of additional evidence.
The grievance in the present petition is that the learned Sessions Judge refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The ground raised by the petitioner was that he had to take care of his ailing mother and could not instruct his lawyer for filing appeal. The said ground taken is falsified by his own appearances before the lower Court on 11 dates in between passing of the order by the Court below and filing of the appeal. The petitioner has approached the Court by stating falsehood. Further, no documents were filed to show that the mother of the petitioner was suffering from any ailment.
Having gone through the petition filed in the lower Court for marking of documents, the said documents were filed in March, 2023 after seven years of the Domestic Violence Case being filed. Nowhere it is mentioned as to what prevented him from filing the said documents till 2023. Further, how the documents have a bearing in the case is not stated. It appears that only to protract the already protracted case, the application was filed.
In the said circumstances, I do not find any infirmity with the order of the learned Sessions Judge in refusing to condone the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this revision case, shall stand closed.