The court affirmed that revisions under criminal law do not cease with the death of the accused, allowing for continuance to address miscarriages of justice.

O R D E R

This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.114 of 1999 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc, Fast Track-II, Pathanamthitta. He was the accused in C.C. No.444 of 1997 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta which was filed under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('NI Act' for short). The learned Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months under Sec.138 of the NI Act and fine of Rs.2,10,000/- under Sec.357(3) Cr.P.C. in default, simple imprisonment for three months. Against that, the accused preferred the above Criminal Appeal, where the learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the sentence to fine of Rs.2,10,000/- in default, simple imprisonment for six months. Being aggrieved by that, the accused preferred this revision petition.

2. The complainant's case in the trial court was that the revision petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) from him and in discharge of that debt, he issued Ext.P1 cheque drawn on Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., Thiruvalla branch. When Ext.P1 was presented for encashment it was dishonoured for the reasons of funds insufficient. The complainant demanded the amount by giving a notice in writing but there was no payment. Hence the complaint. To prove the offence complainant was examined as PW1 in the trial court and his documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P5. The Manager, Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. was examined as PW2. Incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him. He did not adduce any defence evidence. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused.

3. When the matter came up for hearing there was no representation for the revision petitioner. In the circumstance, this Court directed the Sub Inspector, Thiruvalla to produce the revision petitioner. As per the direction, Sub Inspector, Thiruvalla reported that revision petitioner is no more and he produce the death certificate obtained from the Corporation of Chennai, which is marked as Exts.C1. As per Ext.C1 revision petitioner died on 27.06.2010.

4. According to Section 394 Cr.P.C., every appeal under Section 377 or Section 378 shall finally abate on the death of the accused but there is no such abatement is possible in the case of revision. Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

“394. Abatement of appeals.- (1) Every appeal under section 377 or section 378 shall finally abate on the death of the accused.

(2) Every other appeal under this Chapter (except an appeal from a sentence of fine) shall finally abate on the death of the appellant.

Provided that where the appeal is against a conviction and sentence of death or of imprisonment and the appellant dies during the pendency of the appeal, any of his near relatives may, within thirty days of the death of the appellant, apply to the Appellate Court for leave to continue the appeal, and if leave is granted, the appeal shall not abate.

Explanation .-In this section “near relative” means a parent, spouse, lineal descendant, brother or sister.”

Proviso says that if the appeal is against a conviction and sentence of death or of imprisonment and the appellant dies during the pendency of the appeal, any of his near relatives may, within thirty days of the death of the appellant apply to the Appellate Court for leave to continue the appeal, and if leave is granted, the appeal shall not abate. According to Section 394 (2) Cr.P.C., every other appeal (except an appeal from a sentence of fine) shall finally abate on the death of the appellant. But in case of revision even after the death of the revision petitioner, the revision would survive. S.394 Cr.P.C. applies only to appeals alone and in the absence of any statutory provision, High Court has power to pass appropriate orders in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

5. Five Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Pranab Kumar Mitra v. State of W.B. and another