Raghava Reddy vs Kanniappan and Others

Ramaswami, J.—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 u/s 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 also 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 AIR Commentaries on the Limitation Act, Third Edition Sections page 171 and following and AIR 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.