1. Conviction for cheating — Sentence of imprisonment and fine — Pending criminal revision under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure — Death of the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1958 Supreme(SC) 126
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
3rd October, 1958.
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., N.H. BHAGWATI, B.P. SINHA, K. SUBBA RAO AND K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
Pranab Kumar Mitra, Appellant
Versus
State of W.B. and another, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. l16 of 1956.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. C. P. Lal, Advocate, for Appellant; M/s. H. J. Umrigar and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, for Respondents.
Advocates:
C.P.LAL, H.J.Umrigar, R.H.Dhebar
C.P.LAL, H.J.Umrigar, R.H.Dhebar
Criminal revisional applications do not automatically abate upon the death of the petitioner, as Section 431 CrPC applies only to appeals. The High Court possesses discretionary supervisory power to continue the revision and must examine the conviction to determine the legality of a sentence of fine.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 - Sections 431, 435 and 439 - Death of petitioner in criminal revision - Abatement - Whether a pending application in revision finally abates on the death of the petitioner - Section 431 applies specifically to appeals and does not govern revisional applications - Revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 is a discretionary power exercised in aid of justice and serves as a supervisory function to ensure the administration of justice is conducted according to recognized rules of criminal jurisprudence (Paras 4, 6).
(B) Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope - Where the High Court exercises its discretionary power to examine a sentence of fine after the death of the convicted person, it cannot limit such examination to the quantum of the fine without examining the correctness, legality, or propriety of the order of conviction itself, as the legality of the fine is dependent upon the validity of the conviction (Para 7).
Facts of the case:
A person was convicted of cheating and sentenced to a short term of imprisonment and a fine. During the pendency of a revisional application filed before the High Court challenging the conviction and sentence, the petitioner died. The legal heir sought substitution to continue the proceedings. The High Court allowed substitution but restricted its review to the propriety of the fine, refusing to examine the merits of the conviction on the ground that the sentence was composite.
Findings of Court:
The High Court has complete discretion to deal with a pending revisional matter upon the death of the petitioner. Since the sentence of fine affects the estate of the deceased, the High Court is empowered to examine the entire question of the correctness and legality of the sentence, which necessarily involves reviewing the order of conviction.
Issues: Whether a pending application in revision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure abates on the death of the petitioner, and whether the High Court can limit its revisional review to the sentence of fine without examining the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The statutory provisions regarding the abatement of appeals under Section 431 do not apply to revisional applications. Revisional power is supervisory and discretionary. If the court chooses to exercise this power to review a fine imposed on a deceased person, it must be permitted to examine the underlying conviction to determine if the fine was well-founded in law.
Result: Appeal allowed, and case remanded.
Judgement Key Points
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
- The Supreme Court determined that a pending application in revision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not automatically abate on the death of the petitioner, unlike appeals which are governed by Section 431. (!) (!) (!)
- In the absence of a specific statutory provision for criminal revision cases (unlike Section 431 for appeals), the High Court retains the discretionary power to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to ensure justice is done, even after the death of the petitioner. (!) (!)
- The High Court is not bound to treat a pending revisional application as abated solely because the petitioner died, nor is it bound to allow substitution in every case; it must decide based on the facts and requirements of justice. (!)
- If the High Court chooses to entertain a revisional application or calls for the record suo motu after the death of the convicted person, it has the power to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of the entire order, including the conviction itself, not just the sentence of fine. (!)
- The interest of the legal representative in recovering a fine from the deceased's estate entitles them to question the correctness of the conviction, as a conviction implies a liability for fine which would otherwise fall upon the estate. (!)
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the High Court to be dealt with in accordance with law, correcting the High Court's earlier limitation to only reviewing the fine. (!)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a pending criminal revision abates upon the death of the petitioner and whether the scope of such revision is limited to the sentence of fine. (Para 1 , 3 )
3. Section 431 applies only to appeals; revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 is discretionary and intended to supervise the administration of justice regardless of the petitioner's survival. (Para 4 , 6 )
4. Criminal revisions do not automatically abate on the death of the petitioner; the High Court may exercise discretionary power to examine both conviction and fine. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Appeal allowed and case remanded to the High Court for determination in accordance with law. (Para 8 )
6. Does a pending criminal revision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure abate on the death of the petitioner?
No, Section 431, which provides for the abatement of appeals, does not apply to revisional applications. The High Court retains discretionary power under Section 439 to determine the case to ensure justice is done, regardless of whether the petitioner is alive. (Para 4 , 6 )
7. Can the High Court limit its revisional jurisdiction to only the sentence of fine when the petitioner has died?
No. If the High Court exercises its revisional jurisdiction to examine a sentence of fine, it must also examine the correctness of the conviction, as the legality of the fine depends on the validity of the conviction itself. (Para 7 )
8. What is the nature of the High Court's power under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
It is a discretionary power exercised in aid of justice to supervise the administration of justice, ensuring subordinate courts do not exceed their jurisdiction or abuse their powers, rather than a statutory right of the litigant. (Para 6 )
Judgement
B. P. SINHA, J. : The simple question for determination in this appeal on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of judicature at Calcutta, is whether a pending application in revision made under S. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (to be referred to hereinafter as the Code), finally abates on the death of the petitioner in the High Court, and if so, to what extent.
2. It is not necessary to set out, in detail, the facts of the prosecution case and the evidence upon which the findings of the courts of fact were based, except to state that the appellant s father, Sailendra Sundar Mitra, was tried and convicted by a Magistrate of the first class, at Alipore. The appellate court has set out the case against the accused in these words: "The charge against the accused was that on the 2nd December, 1946, at Garden Reach, the accused, being an employee as Establishment Clerk of B. C. II Section in the Traffic Accounts Office of B. N. Railway (now Eastern Railway), cheated the said B. N. Railway Administration by dishonestly inducing it by means of false representation in the pay bill of the nongazetted staff for November, 1946, to deliver to him Rs. 205-13-0 and to one Satish Chandra Das Gupta, a clerk in the said B. C. II Section, Rs. 33-4-0 in excess of legitimate dues, and thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 420, I. P. C." The learned trial Magistrate convicted the accused person for cheating in respect of Rs. 205-13-0, but gave him the benefit of the doubt in respect of the sum of Rs. 33-4-0 claimed on behalf of another person, named Satish Chandra Das Gupta. He sentenced the accused to suffer one day s imprisonment (really detention till the rising of the Court, on the day the order was pronounced), and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, and in default, to rigorous imprisonment for six months more. He also directed that out of the fine, if realised, Rs. 333 shall be paid to the B. N. Railway Administration (now the South Eastern Railway) as compensation, by his order dated February 11, 1955. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge. at Alipore (24, Parganas), after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal, and confirmed the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate, by his judgment dated May 9, 1955.
3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and orders of the courts below, the accused aforesaid moved the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction, under S. 439 of the Code. The High Court issued a Rule which was registered as Criminal Revision Case No. 714 of 1955, and stayed the realisation of the fine pending the hearing of the Rule. During the pendency of the case in the High Court, the accused person died on July 8, 1955, leaving him surviving his widow and five children, all of whom were minors except the appellant. The appellant made an application on December 6, 1955, stating that he was one of the heirs of the deceased accused (petitioner in the High Court), and that he was interested in proceeding with the criminal revision case, and challenging the order of conviction and sentence, passed against his deceased father. He, therefore, prayed that he might be added as a party to the Criminal Revision Case No. 714 of 1955, so as to enable him to challenge the order of conviction and sentence aforesaid. This "application for substitution", as the Division Bench of the High Court has characterised it, was heard, and the Bench passed its order on the application on December 22, 1955, holding that the principle of S. 431 of the Code, applied to a criminal revisional application even when there was a composite sentence but only in so far as the sentence of fine was concerned. The application for substitution was, therefore, allowed. The High Court also ruled that the conviction could not be challenged inasmuch as the sentence was composite one of imprisonment as also fine and that, therefore, the revisional application would survive only to the limited extent whether the
