2021 (3) TMI 861 - HC - Indian Laws

Abatement of revision proceedings on the death of accused person - HELD THAT - This Court has to decide the Revision on merits, even after the death of the applicant/petitioner. It is discretionary power of the High Court to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by any inferior Court. On the death of the convicted person, the question of serving the whole or portion of his sentence of imprisonment does not arise, but the sentence of fine still remains to be examined. If the fact that the fine will have to be paid out of the estate of the deceased petitioner, in revision, the ground for giving the heir or legal representative a right to continue the Appeal or the privilege of maintaining or continuing the revision, in my considered opinion, no prejudice will be caused to the complainant, if the legal heir of the deceased applicant is permitted to continue with the revision application to the extent of imposition of fine amount, which is around ₹ 10 lakhs. Otherwise also, this Court will have to examine correctness, legality or propriety of the order passed by the Appellate Court, even after the death of the petitioner. Condonation of delay in filing criminal revision application - HELD THAT - Though application is moved under Section 394(2) of Cr.P.C. which provides for abatement on the death of the appellant, there is no provision for bringing the legal representative on record in respect of Revision. As such, there is no question of condonation of delay. Applications allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing application to bring legal heir on record, abatement of revision proceedings on death of accused, maintainability of application for condonation of delay, rights of legal heir in criminal revision application.

Analysis:

1. Delay in filing application to bring legal heir on record:
The judgment deals with an application for condonation of delay of approximately 311 days in filing an application to bring the legal heir of the deceased applicant on record. The deceased applicant was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and had filed a revision application challenging the judgment. The delay was attributed to the death of the applicant, which was not immediately known to the applicant's counsel due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown. The applicant's counsel discovered the death when the revision application was listed for final hearing.

2. Abatement of revision proceedings on death of accused:
The main question addressed in the applications was whether revision proceedings would abate upon the death of the accused person. The court examined various legal precedents and held that appeals on the death of the accused should be treated as appeals against the sentence of fine, not abating with regard to the fine. The court emphasized that even in the absence of statutory provisions, the High Court has the power to determine the case, especially concerning the sentence of fine that affects the deceased's property in the hands of legal representatives.

3. Maintainability of application for condonation of delay:
The respondent argued that there is no provision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. for bringing legal heirs on record, making the revision application not maintainable. However, the court held that the absence of a specific provision for bringing legal representatives on record in a revision application does not preclude the court from exercising its discretionary power in the interest of justice. The court highlighted the importance of examining the sentence of fine, even after the death of the accused, to ensure justice is served.

4. Rights of legal heir in criminal revision application:
The court allowed the application for condonation of delay, permitting the legal heir to be added as the applicant in the revision application within a specified period. The court emphasized that examining the correctness, legality, or propriety of the order passed by the lower court, particularly concerning the fine amount, is crucial even after the death of the petitioner. The judgment underscores the discretionary power of the High Court to ensure justice is upheld, even in cases involving the death of a party.

Overall, the judgment clarifies the approach to be taken in cases where an accused person dies during the pendency of revision proceedings, emphasizing the need to consider the rights of legal heirs and the continuation of the revision application to address issues such as fines imposed on the deceased.