Dismissed¶9

Sudhakar Pradhan v. State

Orissa HC8 Apr 2024CRLREV/329/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; CRLREV No. 329 of 2013; decided 08.04.2024 by Chittaranjan Dash, J. Keywords: abatement of criminal revision on death of sole petitioner/convict; absence of legal representatives/legal heirs; revisional jurisdiction and discretion of the High Court; conviction under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(e), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1986; Pranab Kumar Mitra (AIR 1959 SC 144); Bondada Gajapathi Rao (AIR 1964 SC 1645); Suresh Tiwari (Chhattisgarh HC, Criminal Revision No. 310 of 2003); R. v. Rowe ([1955] 2 All ER 234). Outcome: revision dismissed as abated; no relief granted; no quantum.

What did the court decide?

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. ¶5

Sudhakar Pradhan Vs State — Corruption | Orissa HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether, upon the death of the sole Petitioner/convict during pendency, the criminal revision application is to be abated. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

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.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

Drawing on the Supreme Court's observations in Pranab Kumar Mitra, the court can continue with the hearing of the matter in the absence of the Petitioner or its legal representatives whose interests are jeopardized directly by the decision.

¶6

Key takeaways

Since the deceased petitioner/convict had neither a legal representative nor any legal heir who came forward to prosecute the revision, there is no purpose left in proceeding with the Criminal Revision as the charge against the Petitioner has become infructuous; the revision is dismissed as abated.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision — conviction under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1986 (Spl. Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack, T. R. Case No.226 of 2007, judgment dated 19.01.2013) — sole appellant/petitioner expired during pendency on 18.07.2020 leaving no legal representatives, and no legal heir came forward to prosecute the revision — no express provision for abatement of revisions upon the death of the petitioner or for permitting legal heirs to continue; the High Court retains discretion to deal with a pending revision in accordance with the requirements of justice (reliance on Pranab Kumar Mitra v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1959 SC 144, and the Supreme Court opinion noted in Bondada Gajapathi Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1645; following Suresh Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Revision No. 310 of 2003, which referred to R. v. Rowe, [1955] 2 All ER 234) — charge against the deceased petitioner having become infructuous, revision dismissed as abated (Chittaranjan Dash, J., 08.04.2024).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 329 of 2013

¶2

(Arising out of the Judgment of conviction 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.)

¶3

----------

¶4

Sudhakar Pradhan @ Das …. Appellant
Mr. P. R. Barik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha (Vigilance) …. Respondent
Mr. M. S. Rizvi, ASC (Vigilance)
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Judgment : 08.04.2024
Chittaranjan Dash, J.

¶5

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.

¶6

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.

¶7

CRLREV No. 329 of 2013 Page 1 of 5

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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 –

¶11

“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

¶12

CRLREV No. 329 of 2013 Page 2 of 5

¶13

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…

¶14

… 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 thinks it fit and proper to entertain an application in revision or calls for the record suo motu, it has the power to examine the whole question of the correctness, propriety or legality of the sentence of fine, which necessarily involves examining the order of conviction itself from that point of view.”

¶15

In the light of observation made by the Supreme Court, it can very well be perceived that the court can continue with the hearing of the matter in absence of Petitioner or it’s legal representatives whose interests are jeopardized directly by the decision. In the opinion of the Supreme Court in the matter of in Bondada Gajapathi Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1964 SC 1645 , while in a case otherwise, the ordinary rule that a criminal proceeding against a person comes to an end on his demise, must apply also to special appeals, such as the one before us, even though the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code may not be directly applicable.

¶16

CRLREV No. 329 of 2013 Page 3 of 5

¶17

Further as held by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in S uresh Tiwari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Revision No. 310 of 2003 dated 9^th of October, 2014 wherein they have referred to the principles discussed in R. Vs. Rowe [1955] 2 All ER 234 , that held as follows–

¶18

“Counsel, instructed not by the prisoner but by his widow, applies to be allowed to continue this application, but, in the opinion of the court, we cannot allow a widow, or an executor, or an administrator of a deceased person to appeal to this court unless they can show an interest, which must be a legal interest. If a person is sentenced to pay a fine and, having appealed, dies, or even if he dies after or immediately after the fine has been paid, the court would, perhaps, allow his executors or administrators to carry on the appeal or to appeal merely on the ground that, if they can get the conviction quashed, they can save or recover the fine for the benefit of the estate of the deceased which they are bound of administer......,.....

¶19

....Nobody is affected now by the judgment of the court because the judgment of the court was a sentence of imprisonment and the prisoner has died. If the sentence of the court had been a fine then, as I say, somebody would be affected by the judgment of the court and would have an interest in getting it set aside.”

¶20

In the said judgment, the High Court of Chhattisgarh, also held that –

¶21

“In the case in hand, the deceased applicant convicted under Section 380 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pranab Kumar Mitra (supra) and Bondada Gajapathi Rao (supra) and by the English Court of appeal in Rowe (supra), the legal heirs of the deceased applicant were entitled to prosecute the revision application even though no express provision is made applicable to revision application for abatement of revisions or for permitting the legal heirs to prosecute the revision applications, however, since no application has been made by the legal heirs of the deceased applicant seeking permission to prosecute the revision, the instant revision application is dismissed as abated.”

¶22

CRLREV No. 329 of 2013 Page 4 of 5

¶23

In the present matter, the deceased applicant neither has a legal representative nor did the legal heirs move ahead to prosecute the revision application. Hence, this Court is of the view that there is no purpose left in proceeding with the Criminal Revision as the charge against the Petitioner has become infructuous. The CRLREV thereby is dismissed as abated.

¶24

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶25

AKPradhan

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORI SSA Date: 11-Apr-2024 14:06:19

¶28

CRLREV No. 329 of 2013 Page 5 of 5

Sudhakar Pradhan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhakar Pradhan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Suna Vs State of Odisha

Raghunath Patra Vs State of Odisha

Kanhu Charan Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Basudev Majhi Vs State of Orissa

Jayanti Jena Vs State of Odisha

Ananda Nayak Vs State of Odisha