Miscellaneous Petition No. 189 of 2024 · The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner in Crl.A. No. 144112024 on the file of the Honorable lV Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad at Nampally, pending disposal of the main criminal revision case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J. RAVINDRA Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI E. GANESH, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER "-=r THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1263 OF 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Revisior-r Case is filed by the pre titioner/ accused aggricved by thc order dated 25. ll.2024 in Crl.M.P.N'r.189 of 2024 in Crl.S.R.No. l2O2l\ of 2024 (subsequently numbered as Crl.A No.l44l of 2024) passed b), the Court of Sessions Judge, HyderzLbzrd, allowing the application filed lo t:ondone the delay of 225 days in preferring the appeal.

2. Thc bricf Irrcls of the case are that basing on th: complaint dated

07.01.2010 loclged by the complainant/ Sirisha Keerthi, the respor-rdcr-rt/ police registcred Crime No.1 of 201O ancl after completion of investigation, the respondent/ police filed charge sheet against the pctitioncr/ ar:cu sc frrr thc offences punishable under Sle ctions 66 an 67 of Information artd Technologr Act and Sections 5Oi' and 509 of IPC and the same \\ as numbered as C.C.No.269 of 2O1l on the file ol learncd VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, {yderabad ( for short 'trial Courl ').

3. Thc trial court aftcr Iull-fledged trial and on appreciation of oral ernd document:rry evidence available on record found the petitionc r/ accusr:d not guilty for the offences wittr which he was charged and accordingly vide judgment dated 10. l(),2023 acquitted him of the said olfences under Sections 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by 0 I z the same, the respondent/ Inspector of police, G.O.W, CID police, filed an appeal with a petition in Crl.M.p.No. lg9 of 2024 in Crl.S.R.No.12023 of 2024 (subsequently numbered as Crl.A.No. l44l of 2024) passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (,the appellate Cour), seeking to condone the detay of 225 days in preferring the appeal against the judgment dated 10. 10.2023 in C.C.No.269 of 2018 on the file of the VI Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

4. The respondent/ police contended that after passing the judgment on 10.10.2023, he has applied for the certihed copy of the judgment on 13.02.2024 and the same was made ready on 26.02.2024 and the copy of the said judgment was received on 2g.O2.2O24. Subsequently, since he was deputed to Bandobust duties and also deputed in connection with Mp elections duty and busy in other duties he could not pursue the matter and there was delay of 22S days in preferring the appeal.

5. The petitioner/accused hled counter denying the said reasons and contended that the respondent/police has not given any satisfactory explanations with the delay and sought for dismissal of the applications.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and basing on the material available on record, the appellate Court allowed :+- J the said application vidc order dated 23.11.2024, con,loning the delay of 225 days in prel'erring the appeal. Aggrieved by thr: said order dated

25.71 .2024, thc p€ tilione r/accused has preferred th( present criminal revlslon case

7. Hearing .J.R:rvindra, learned counsel for the pe:itioner/ accused and Sri E.Ganr:sh, lcarned Additional Public Pr,tr;ecutor for the respondent/ Slate. Perused the record.

8. Learned cc',unsel lor the petitioner/ accused contended that the appellate CourL t--rrt:d in allowing the application by condoning the long dclay of 225 d:-rys in prcfcrring the appeal. He also corLtended that the appellatc Court oultht to have considered the fact the t what prevented the respondent/ police in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Thc re s1;ond <: n l/ police has not shown an5' sufficicnt cause lor nol prcferring the :rppeal within time. He also contended that respondent/polic,r lailed to give any cogent and conv:rcing reasons to condone the krng dr:lay of 225 days.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the re sponden t/ polic:c prepared affidavit in a casual milllner given very lame reasons for the inordinate delay in preferring the appeal. The learned appellate Court ought not to have gone into tlte merits of the case u'hile allon'ing the delay petition. The respondent/ police have not filed any docllm€'ntary evidence for condoning the delay with such 4 inordinate delay of 225 days in preferring the appcal, hence sought to allow the criminal revision case

10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the same and contended that keeping in view the severity of offence and a-[so facts and circumstances that occasioned in preferring the appeal, the appellate Court rightly allowed an application condoning the delay in hling the appeal and hence sought for dismissal of the criminal revision case.

11. A perusal of record discloses that the trial Court after ful-fledged trial only dismissed the C.C.NO.269 of 2018 vide judgment dated lO.lO.2O23 holding that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused, the respondent/police has not given any satisfactory explanation for condoning such inordinate delay in preferring the appeal. Moreover, there is no documentary proof in this regard. The respondent/ police in a very causal manner and giving Iame reasons sought for condoning of delay and the appellate Court also erred in allowing the application hled with such lame reasons. From the very attitude of the respondent/police, it is evident that the respondent/poiice was not interested to prosecute diligently and tried to drag the matter by frling application with such an inordinate delay, which will cause lot of hardship and mental agony to the petitioner/ accused )

12. Therefore, I do not find any cogent and convincing reasons in the impugned order passcd bv the learned appellate CotLrt in allowing an application liied by thc respondent/ Police.

13. Accordinglr', this Criminal Revision Case is allou ed setting aside the impugned orrler daled 25.11.2024 in Crl.M.PNo 189 of 2024 in Crl.S. R.No.12 O23 ol 2024 (subsequently numbered as rlrl.A.No. 1441 of 2024) passed by lht: learned appellate Court. Miscellanr:ous ))ctitions, pending if any, shall stl:rd closed //TRUE COPY// Srl/- l. NAGA LAKSHMI JOINT REGISTRAR r' |') SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Sessions Judge, Hyderabad at Nampally (with reoords, if any) 2. The lV Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad at Na:npally (with records, if any)

3. The Vl Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, HyderabarJ (with records, if any)

4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana Iligh Courl Buildings at Hyderabad[OUT]

5. The Station House Offrcer, Cyber Crime Police Station, lyderabad. 6. One CC to Sri Jakkamsetti Ravindra, Advocate [OPUC]I 7 Two CD Copies Plp/kam HIGH COURT DATED:0210112025 ORDER CRLRC.No.1263 of 2024 .i il -, ,. t\ ' _) 23 nen 26 \-/i:,- \.: ,._:-.,:\ - ,.,// , .-/ --._-. _-rr- .1 I |. I i I I I I I I I ALLOWING THE CRL.R.C. $