ORDER : This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., is filed by two convicts assailing the order dated 05.02.2010 of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore in Crl.M.P.No.108 of 2009. 2. In C.C.No.256 of 2006 filed by the Station House Officer, IV Town Police Station (Law and Order), Nellore, these two revision petitioners were prosecuted and after due trial, learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nellore by a judgment dated 02.02.2007 found both of them guilty for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and each of them was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence of Simple Imprisonment for three months. Revision petitioner No.1 was further convicted for the offence under Section 509 I.P.C. and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence of Simple Imprisonment for three months. 3. The convicting judgment of learned Magistrate was delivered on 02.02.2007. It seems that both the convicts intended to prefer an appeal but they failed to prefer the appeal within time and therefore, they filed Crl.M.P.No.108 of 2009 before learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore seeking to condone 731 days delay in presenting the criminal appeal. State was shown as respondent in that application and it filed its counter. After due hearing, by the impugned order the learned Principal Sessions Judge, dismissed the application. Aggrieved of that order, the present revision is filed. 4. Learned counsel for revision petitioners and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted their arguments. 5. The point that falls for consideration is: “Whether the impugned order suffers from illegality, irregularity or impropriety requiring interference? 6. Point: Before the learned Principal Sessions Judge the facts presented by these revision petitioners indicate that they instructed their lawyer to file the appeal and the lawyer by a letter informed them that he preferred the appeal and it was pending. However, during the subsequent days they found that the appeal was not pending. In fact the appeal was filed on 01.03.2007 and the office raised certain objections and returned it on 06.03.2007. Their counsel took return of the bundle and misplaced it. Copies of the appeal papers are available with the revision petitioners. However, during the subsequent days they found that the appeal was not pending. In fact the appeal was filed on 01.03.2007 and the office raised certain objections and returned it on 06.03.2007. Their counsel took return of the bundle and misplaced it. Copies of the appeal papers are available with the revision petitioners. Since they entertained a genuine belief that the appeal was preferred and pending, they could not act otherwise until they realized that the appeal was not resubmitted and therefore it was not pending. These facts were shown as sufficient cause for condonation of 731 days delay. 7. On enquiring into this matter and after due hearing, the learned Principal Sessions Judge refused to condone the delay on the principal ground that the returned appeal papers were never represented and the objections were never complied with and all that set of papers were not brought to the Court and a different set of appeal papers were filed. Finding fault with such practice the learned Sessions Judge refused to condone the delay. Referring to the letter said to have been addressed by the earlier counsel to these revision petitioners, the learned Principal Sessions Judge recorded that the contents of the letter do not indicate filing of any appeal at all. With those reasons the petition for condonation of delay was dismissed. 8. In this revision, learned counsel submits that it was misplacement of bundle that was the cause of delay and the revision petitioners were not at fault, but it was the fault of their counsel and for the fault of the counsel the revision petitioners should not be punished. That the material submitted before the learned Sessions Judge would have convinced him to condone the delay. The grounds mentioned in the revision show that the original memorandum of appeal, which was returned by the Court, is not with the revision petitioners and it was not handed over to them and it was for that reason they could not present their papers. For these reasons, they sought for upsetting the impugned order. 9. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the contentions raised in this revision are incorrect and the observations made by the learned Principal Sessions Judge are correct and there is no merit in this revision and seeks for its dismissal. 10. First revision petitioner was a Head Constable. For these reasons, they sought for upsetting the impugned order. 9. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the contentions raised in this revision are incorrect and the observations made by the learned Principal Sessions Judge are correct and there is no merit in this revision and seeks for its dismissal. 10. First revision petitioner was a Head Constable. Both the revision petitioners were properly advised and defended during the criminal prosecution before the learned Magistrate and they have their own lawyer advising them and assisting them in preferring their appeal against conviction. Parties to the case are to conduct themselves in accordance with law. 11. Chapter No.7 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 (for short, ‘Rules, 1990’) provides the manner in which criminal appeals are to be presented. For the present case purpose, Rules 101 and 102 of Rules, 1990 are relevant and they are extracted below: “101. Presentation of Appeals:- Petitions of appeals from the convictions and orders passed by a Magistrate may be filed in the Court of Sessions by delivering the same to the Chief Ministerial Officer of that Court at any time during office hours. The said Officer shall at once endorse on the document the date of presentation and the serial Number. 102. Defective Petitions return for rectification:- Petitions and applications filed in the Court of Sessions should conform to the provisions of law. If any petition or application is found to be defective in any respect, it shall be returned to the party or Advocate concerned for amendment and representation within a specified time.” 12. According to the revision petitioners, on 01.03.2007 through their lawyer they presented the appeal and that was within time but their appeal papers were found to be defective and therefore for resubmission after rectification the appeal papers were returned. By virtue of Rule 102 of Rules, 1990 referred above, it was their duty to rectify the errors and resubmit those very appeal papers which were earlier returned. They were not expected to file a new set of papers. If for any reason they intended to file a new set of papers, they must obtain the leave of the learned Principal Sessions Judge and that new set of papers could be filed only along with the returned appeal papers and not without the returned appeal papers. They were not expected to file a new set of papers. If for any reason they intended to file a new set of papers, they must obtain the leave of the learned Principal Sessions Judge and that new set of papers could be filed only along with the returned appeal papers and not without the returned appeal papers. Both by the averments in the petition filed before the learned Principal Sessions Judge as well as grounds mentioned in this revision the admitted position is that the original appeal papers were never represented before the learned Principal Sessions Judge. It is never the case of revision petitioners that they sought specific permission from the learned Principal Sessions Judge to file a new set of appeal papers. Thus, their failure to comply with the rule is apparent. In such circumstances, the refusal of the learned Principal Sessions Judge in entertaining the petition to condone the delay is justified. 13. Both before the lower Court as well here the submission made for revision petitioners is that the appeal papers were returned by the Court and their counsel took return of them and misplaced them. It is for that reason they could not file the original papers. To accept this contention, one requires an affidavit from the earlier counsel of the revision petitioners showing that the bundle was misplaced. They did not file any such affidavit of their counsel. It is not the case of revision petitioners that the returned papers were with them. 14. According to revision petitioners, they did not take return of the papers but it was their counsel. They have not filed any written notice issued by them to their counsel demanding their returned appeal papers. Thus, misplacement of loss of criminal appeal papers and attributing the negligence to their own counsel seems to be a ploy to overcome the gross negligence on part of the revision petitioners. The order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge is in accordance with reasons and logic. There is absolutely no irregularity or illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned order. Revision petitioners failed to indicate anything that could convince a revisional Court to upset the said order. Point is answered against the revision petitioners. 15. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order dated 05.02.2010 of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore in Crl.M.P.No.108 of 2009. Revision petitioners failed to indicate anything that could convince a revisional Court to upset the said order. Point is answered against the revision petitioners. 15. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order dated 05.02.2010 of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore in Crl.M.P.No.108 of 2009. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.