Legal heirs of a deceased convict are liable for compensation awarded in criminal cases, and appeals do not abate upon the death of the accused regarding compensation.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta upon completion of trial of a Complaint Case No. C-927/96 under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, finally decided and found guilty of the offences as complained of whereby convicted and sentenced the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 to suffer imprisonment for six months each and to pay a compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- to the applicant/complainant.

2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the Petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 33/2000 which was renumbered as Criminal Appeal No. 149/21 before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta.

3. After admission of appeal, the matter was finally heard on 06.12.2021. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta was pleased to affirm the judgment of the Learned Magistrate thereby directing that in addition to suffer imprisonment so affirmed by the said order, the accused persons/petitioners shall pay compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/-(Rupees Twelve Lakhs) only in accordance with Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and, in default, Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 shall further suffered simple imprisonment for 3 months each being vicariously liable.

4. Assailing the Judgment passed by the Learned Appellate Court, the petitioners herein preferred the instant Criminal Revisional application being CRR No 138 of 2022 before this Hon’ble Court.

5. This Court is to determine the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order affirmed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta regarding the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners.

6. During the pendency of this case, petitioner no. 3 expired on 28.07.2023. However, in the event of death of petitioner no. 3, the Criminal Revisional application cannot be considered as abated against the petitioner no. 3 since the Learned Court below has directed the accused no. 3 along with another accused/convict to pay a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- as a compensation to the complainant.

7. In such a situation, the legal heirs or representatives of the deceased are liable to pay compensation from the estate of the deceased, if Revisional application would be dismissed after hearing the parties. Therefore, the opposite party filed this application in order to avoid future complications and/or impasse and to uphold the law of the land praying for substitution of legal heirs of the petitioner no. 3, since deceased, in connection with the instant Revisional application.

8. The name of his legal heirs, namely, Mrs. Krishna Gupta, wife of deceased, Bhromar Gupta, Bidisha Gupta, both are daughters of the deceased and Arjun Gupta, son of the deceased, as mentioned in the application may be added/substituted as party to this Revisional application and are directed to contest in the Revisional application in accordance with law. Hence, this application for substitution.

9. It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant of CRAN No. 11 of 2024 that it is settled proposition of law an appeal/revision from the sentence of fine cannot be abated in the event of the death of appellant/revisionist/convict as it is excepted from all pervasive rule of abatement of appeal/revision for the reason that fine/compensation constitutes a liability on the estate of the decea