Kerala High Court
Prof.Joseph Moolayil vs Prof.V.A.Chacko on 10 February, 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1938
CRL.REV.PET.NO. 690 OF 2007 (A)
--------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST NOS.146/1991, 308/91 AND 309/91 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PALA
----------------------
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
---------------------------------
PROF.JOSEPH MOOLAYIL,
MOOLAYIL HOUSE,
KIZHATHADIYOOR P.O.,
PALAI.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.)
SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS & STATE :
---------------------------------
1. PROF.V.A.CHACKO,
KEEPURATH HOUSE,
VAYALA P.O., PALAI.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.N.PRABHAKARAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 23-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
NS
CRL.REV.PET.NO. 690 OF 2007 (A)
APPENDIX
REVISION PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE I : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 10.02.2006 ISSUED BY THE
NEUROLOGIST.
ANNEXURE II: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 26.05.2006 ISSUED BY
MERCY HOSPITAL, POTHY, THALAYOLAPARAMBU.
RESPONDENT(S) ANNEXURES : NIL
/ TRUE COPY /
NS P.A. TO JUDGE
P.D. RAJAN, J.
-------------------
Crl. Rev.Pet. No.690 of 2007
----------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2016
O R D E R
This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the order in S.T. No.146 of 1991, S.T. No.308 of 1991 and S.T. No.309 of 1991 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala. The petitioner was acquitted in the above three cases but the 1st respondent preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.430, 431 and 435 of 1995 before this Court. The learned Judge convicted the accused and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and directed to deposit Rs.2,75,000/-, Rs.2,25,000/- and Rs.1,75,000/- respectively in the above cases with a default sentence of three months each. Being aggrieved by that, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.1354 of 2003 before the Honourable Supreme Court which was finally dismissed by the Apex court. In the circumstance, the petitioner approached the court below with an exemption application from undergoing imprisonment till rising of the Court by explaining his Crl. Rev.Pet. No.690 of 2007 2 physical conditions. The court below rejected that plea. Being aggrieved by that, the accused preferred this revision petition.
2. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the accused/revision petitioner is no more. Hence, this court obtained a report from the Circle Inspector, Pala. The death certificate obtained from the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Pala Municipality is marked as Ext.C1. As per Ext.C1 the accused/revision petitioner died on 02.06.2010.
3. According to Sec.394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure there is abatement of appeal after the death of the accused. But no such abatement is possible in the case of revision petition. Sec.394 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:
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 Crl. Rev.Pet. No.690 of 2007 3 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.
4. Apex court in various decisions like Pranab Kumar Mitra v. State of West Bengal and Another [AIR 1959 SC 144], State of Kerala v. Narayani Amma Kamala Devi and others [AIR 1962 SC 1530], held that after the death of the revision petitioner or default of his legal heirs to pursue the revision, the jurisdiction of the high court to decide the matter after it has been taken on file, on its merit does not cease.
5. Learned counsel submitted that entire amount as per the direction of the Supreme Court was deposited by the accused in the trial Court. If such amount is not deposited as directed by the Honourable Supreme Court learned Magistrate can proceed as per law. It is also submitted that after the death of the accused there is no meaning in continuing this revision petition.
Crl. Rev.Pet. No.690 of 2007 4
In the light of the above submission made by the learned counsel, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed for non prosecution.
Sd/-
P.D. RAJAN,
JUDGE
/ True Copy /
NS/28/11/2016 P.A,. To Judge