Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. The legality, propriety and correctness of the Judgment and order dated 19.01.2013 passed by Spl. Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack in T. R. Case No.226 of 2007 for the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1986 has been called in question in this revision.

2. The learned standing counsel for the State (Vigilance), Mr. P. K. Barik, the learned counsel for the Petitioner/convict submitted that the sole Petitioner has expired in the meantime on 18.07.2020 and there is no L.Rs to continue the revision.

3. Mr. Sangram Das, the learned Standing Counsel for the State (Vigilance) subscribing the contentions submitted that the Petitioner expired on 18.07.2020 and the Death Certificate has been issued by the authority on 21.08.20220.

4. In view of the above, the moot question before this Court is whether upon the death of the sole Petitioner/convict, the revision application is to be abated.

5. There is no express provision for abatement of revisions upon the death of the petitioner or for permitting the legal heirs to move ahead with the revision applications, however, reliance can be placed in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Pranab Kumar Mitra Vs. State of West Bengal and Anr . AIR 1959 SC 144 wherein it has been held as follows – “But in the absence of any such enactment, we may infer that the power of revision vested in the High Court under Chapter XXXII of the Code, was left untouched-to be exercised according to the exigencies of each case. The High Court is not bound to entertain an application in revision, or having entertained one, to order substitution in every case. It is not bound the other way, namely, to treat a pending application in revision as having abated by reason of the fact that there was a composite sentence of imprisonment and fine, as some of the single Judge decisions placed before us, would seem to indicate. The High Court has been left complete discretion to deal with a pending matter on the death of the petitioner in accordance with the requirements of justice. The petitioner in the High Court may have been an accused person who has been convicted and sentenced, or he may have been a complainant who may have been directed under s.

250 of the Code to pay compensation to an accused person upon his discharge or acquittal. Whether it was an accused person or it was a complainant who has moved the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction, if the High Court has issued a Rule, that Rule has to be beard and determined in accordance with law, whether or not the petitioner in the High Court is alive or dead, or whether he is represented in court by a legal practitioner. In hearing and determining cases under s. 439 of the Code, the High Court discharges its statutory function of supervising the administration of justice on the criminal side. Hence, the considerations applying to abatement of an appeal, may not apply to the case of revisional applications… … On the death of the convicted person, the question of his serving the whole or a portion of his sentence of imprisonment, does not arise. But the sentence of fine still remains to be examined- whether it was well founded in law. This question cannot be effectively gone into unless the order of conviction itself is examined on its merits. If the fact that the fine will have to be paid out of the estate of the deceased appellant or petitioner in revision, is the ground for giving the heir or legal representative a right - to continue the appeal or a privilege of maintaining or continuing a revision, the same principle should entitle him to question the correctness of the conviction itself, for, if the conviction remains, at least some fine, however nominal, will have to be paid by the heir or the legal representative out of the estate of the deceased. In our opinion, therefore, where the High Court thi