The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases where financial benefit has accrued by the order of conviction and sentence in favor of the deceased complainant or his legal representatives, they must be heard as party respondents in the petition in the interest of justice.

These two applications one under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (Cr. M. P. (M) No. 417 of 2001) for condonation of delay in filing the other application to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 1 (Cr. M. P. (M) No. 416 of 2001) have been filed by the applicant/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") in Criminal Revision No. 104 of 2.

2. Briefly stated, facts leading to the filing of these applications are that respondent Bhagat Ram (since deceased) filed a complaint against the petitioner under S. 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ("hereafter referred to as the Act"). The learned trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 55,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and further directed that out of the fine imposed, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- shall be paid to complainant Bhagat Ram.

3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal in which said Bhagat Ram and State of Himachal Pradesh were arrayed as respondents. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla. Hence, the revision by the petitioner. During the pendency of the criminal revision petition, said Bhagat Ram died, therefore, these two petitions have been filed by the petitioner.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondent-State. However, none appeared for the proposed legal representative(s) on the date of hearing despite service and one of them being duly represented by a counsel. Cri. M. P. (M) No. 417 of 2001.

5. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure here-after referred to as "the Code") which provides for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased party. Thus, there is no legal requirement of filing any application to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased within any prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (Cri. M. P. (M) No. 417 of 2001) moved by the petitioner is misconceived and deserves rejection on this ground alone and is accordingly rejected. Cr. M. P.(M) No. 416 of 2001.

6. In the case in hand, the petitioner who has been convicted, is alive, therefore, there is no question of abatement of the present revision petition. Even otherwise, a criminal revision once admitted for hearing, has to be disposed of on merits.

7. The question for determination, in fact, is whether the legal representatives of the deceased respondent must be impleaded as party respondents in the present revision petition or not? As already stated herein-above, there is no provision in the Code providing for substituting the legal representatives of a deceased respondent in a criminal revision petition. It is also settled position in law that even in a private complaint if the accused is convicted and sentenced and he prefers an appeal or revision, the State has to take care of defending the conviction and it has to be heard in support of the conviction and sentence even if the complainant does not put in appearance to support the conviction and sentence. Nevertheless, in my view, the complainant in such a case at least must be served with a notice of the appeal/revision. It is so because while deciding a case, the Court has to keep in mind two principles viz. (i) no person should be condemned unheard and (ii) justice should not only be done but it must seem to have been done. Therefore, the application to add the legal representatives of the deceased respondent as such in the revision petition has to be examined against this background.

8. The petitioner was tried on the basis of a private complaint in a non-cognizable offence and was finally convicted and sentenced. The impugned order provides that out of the amount of fine of Rs. 35,000/-, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- be paid to the complainant, evidently as compe