JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Mahavir Pd. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners along with Mr. Santosh Kr. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Heard Mrs. Nikki Sinha, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State.

3. Heard Mr. Shailendra Jit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner no. 1 has expired during the pendency of the present case. However, she submits that fine was also imposed against him.

5. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner no. 2 is wife of petitioner no. 1 and is accordingly the legal representative of petitioner no. 1. Accordingly, he submits that liability, if any, in connection with the fine imposed upon petitioner no. 1 will be borne by petitioner no. 2.

6. Considering the fact that the petitioner no. 1 has expired, office is directed to delete the name of petitioner no. 1 by red ink. It is observed that petitioner no. 2, being the wife and the legal representative of