Back
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL
Gopikala Shendey W/o Late G. R. Shendey – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for recalling order dated 12.01.2018 (Annexure A/3) passed in Criminal Appeal No.3324/1999 (Ganesh Rao Shindey v. State of M.P.).
2. The facts of the case is that the petitioner’s husband Ganesh Rao Shendey, now deceased, was convicted by the Special Judge, Raipur in Special Case No.11/92 and vide judgment dated 06.12.1999 (Annexure A/1), he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- each under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 03 months simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine.
3. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 06.12.1999, Ganesh Rao Shendey filed a criminal appeal bearing No.3324/1999 before this Court. However, during the pendency of the said appeal, unfortunately, he died on 16.09.2016 and when his appeal came up before a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 12.01.2018, the learned State Counsel reported that he has died and his death certificate along with report of the TI, Police Station, Basna were also filed in support of the same.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that where the sentence is a composite one including fine along with imprisonment, the appeal would not abate under Section 394 of CrPC.
Appeals against sentences do not automatically abate upon the appellant's death if relatives do not contest the case, allowing appeals to be dismissed as abated.
An appeal does not abate upon the death of an appellant when the sentence includes a fine, as established under Section 394 of the Cr.P.C.
An appeal does not abate upon the death of the appellant if it involves a sentence of fine, and sufficient explanation for delay in filing an application to continue the appeal can be accepted.
A court cannot alter or review its judgment post-signature except for clerical errors, as outlined in Sections 362 and 482 of the CrPC.
The High Court lacks the power to review or recall its orders after they have been signed, as it becomes functus officio and such actions are barred under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
