IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD SHARMA th ON THE 26 OF AUGUST, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 918 of 2002 M.K.RAJSHEKHAR NAIR Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Appearance:

Shri Eshaan Datt - Advocate for appellant.

Shri Vikram Singh - Advocate for respondent.

ORDER This criminal appeal, under Sec.374 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4th of June, 2002 passed in Special Case (CBI) No.3/2001, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sec.477A IPC and 409 of the IPC and Sec.13(1)(c) read with Sec.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.15,000/- under Sec.477A of the IPC, RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.15,000/- under Sec.409 of the IPC and RI for 1 year and fine of Rs.35,000/- for Sec.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, with default stipulations. Out of the amount of fine, Rs.60,000/- is directed to be paid to the Railway administration.

2. It is an admitted fact that the accused was serving as an Enquiry-cum- Reservation Clerk at Jabalpur Railway Station during the relevant period and was entrusted with the duty of issuing reservation tickets to passengers for various destinations and collecting fare and reservation charges on behalf of Signature Not Verified the Indian Railways.

3. Briefly stated, the prosecution's case is that the accused was employed as an ECRC at Counter No. 8 of the Central Railway Booking Office, Jabalpur, during the period from August 1992 to December 1992, in the capacity of a public servant. It is alleged that on various dates between 12.08.1992 and 04.12.1992, the accused sold journey-cum-reservation tickets for destinations including Kanpur, Lucknow, Durg, and Raipur. However, he recorded a lesser number of tickets in the Daily Train Cash-cum-Summary (DTC)

Register and, by doing so, misappropriated an amount of Rs.62,911/-.

4. The trial court after framing charges, recording the evidence and hearing final arguments, held the accused guilty and passed a sentence as noted above.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that, in view of the death of the accused on 14.8.2015, the proceedings against the accused stand abated. It is further contended that Section 394 of the Cr.P.C. saves only those appeals which arise solely against a sentence of fine. However, where a composite sentence of imprisonment and fine has been imposed, the appeal is required to abate in its entirety, covering both the sentence of imprisonment and the fine. Accordingly, it is submitted that the appeal be treated as having abated in toto.

6. Learned counsel for the State/CBI, opposing the submissions, contends that since the sentence includes a component of fine, the appeal must be adjudicated on merits. It is further argued that a sentence of fine, even when forming part of a composite sentence of imprisonment and fine, nevertheless Signature Not Verified retains its character as a sentence of fine. In this regard, attention of this court is drawn towards Sec.394 of the Cr.P.C.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the sole question for determination in this appeal is whether, in the facts of the present case, the death of the appellant-accused during pendency of the appeal results in abatement of the appeal in its entirety, where the sentence imposed includes both imprisonment and fine ?

8. Sec.394 of the Cr.P.C. deals with abatement of appeals. Sec.394 is 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 day