S. R. BANNURMATH, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition was filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26-3-2001 passed by the learned XIV Addl. C. M. M. , Bangalore in C. C. No. 24949/1997 convicting the petitioner /accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo S. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 63,00,000/- with default sentence. It was ordered that the fine amount be recovered from the accused and out of the same, a sum of Rs. 57,50,000/-, be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357, Cr. P. C. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached the learned XIII Addl. Sessions judge, Bangalore in Cri. A. No. 15025/2001 who also affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence and hence the present revision petition.

( 2 ) THIS revision petition was admitted on 22-3-2002, pending final disposal. In the mean while on 17-2-2003, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo stating that the revisional petitioner P. R. Anjanappa expired on 1-2-2003 and as such, as per section 394, Cr. P. C. , the revision petition abates as the sentence imposed can no longer be executed. This memo was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent- complainant inter alia contending that the provisions of Section 394, Cr. P. C. are not attracted to the revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401, Cr. P. C.

( 3 ) SINCE the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the question of abatement and its consequences is matter of general importance, the counsel for both the sides were heard in detail in this regard.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended relying upon the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of V. Govindrajalu v. State of mysore reported in AIR 1962 Mysore 275 : (1962 (2) Cri LJ 765) in which case it was held that as per the old Section, Section 431, cr. P. C. , corresponding to Section 497, cr. P. C. , wherever an accused has been convicted and sentenced to undergo substantive sentence as well as fine and while his appeal is under consideration the appellant dies, the appeal filed insofar as it relates to substantive sentence, abates. It is contended that in the present case the sentence of six months S. I. does not alone become substantive sentence, as the sentence of fine accompanies imprisonment sentence in default of payment of fine also becomes substantive sentence and as such, as the sentence passed against the petitioner is composite in nature which cannot be bifurcated, the entire revision petition abates. He also relied upon two pronouncements of the Apex court. One is the case of Harnam Singh v. The State of Himachal Pradesh reported in air 1975 SC 236 : (1975 Cri LJ 276) and another is the case of Om Prakash v. The state of Haryana reported in AIR 1979 SC 1266 : (1979 Cri LJ 857) wherein also it is laid down that every appeal against the conviction abates on the death of accused except an appeal from a sentence of fine.

( 5 ) THERE is no dispute as to the proposition of law as envisaged under Section 394, cr. P. C. as well as the law declared by the this Court and the Apex Court in this regard. Under the present provision, Section 394, Cr. P. C. , it is mandated that "every appeal under Section 377 or 378, Cr. P. C. shall finally abate on the death of the accused. The only exception is provided under subsection (2) of Section 394, Cr. P. C. wherein it is provided that "every other appeal under this chapter (except an appeal from a sentence of fine) shall finally abate on the death of the appellant," that is to say, every other appeal shall abate on the death of the appellant except the appeal from sentence of fine, which, even in case of death of appelant/accused, does not abate. The object behind this provision as well as the exception as provided under sub-section (2) is obvious. Wherever the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment and has pref

Click Here to Read the rest of this document