High Court Kerala High Court

K.Sudhakaran vs M.A.Jayakumari on 12 November, 2010

Kerala High Court
K.Sudhakaran vs M.A.Jayakumari on 12 November, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1830 of 2005()


1. K.SUDHAKARAN, DOOR NO.V/128,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M.A.JAYAKUMARI,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN

 Dated :12/11/2010

 O R D E R
                        V.K.MOHANAN, J.
                      -------------------------------
                     Crl. R.P.No.1830 of 2005
                      -------------------------------
           Dated this the 12th day of November, 2010.

                           O R D E R

By filing a memo dated 19.9.2010, the counsel for the

revision petitioner brought to the notice of this court that the

revision petitioner expired on 13.10.2009 and further requested

to pass appropriate order in the above matter.

2. The revision petition was filed challenging the conviction

and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner, who is an

accused u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Both the courts

below found the revision petitioner guilty u/s.138 of NI Act and

finally imposed a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the

court and also sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.42,000/- and in

default directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month.

It is also ordered that on realisation of the fine amount, a sum of

Rs.40,000/- shall be paid to the complainant by way of

compensation u/s.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.

3. Section 394 of Cr.P.C. mandate that, “Every appeal

2
Crl. R.P.No.1830 of 2005

under section 377 or section 378 shall finally abate on the

death of the accused”. This Court in the decision reported in

Viswanathan Vs. State of Kerala (2006(3) KLT 539) has held

that, “Even after the death of the revision petitioner/

accused, the revision would survive and Court can pass

appropriate orders with regard to sentence of fine.” In the

light of the above decision and by virtue of S.394 of Cr.P.C. and

on the basis of the submission made by the learned counsel,

which is supported by the ‘not pressed memo’, this revision

petition is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence

imposed by the court below. It is made clear that as directed by

the court below, if the fine amount of Rs.42,000/- is realised, a

sum of Rs.40,000/- shall be released in favour of the

complainant. The courts below is free to take steps to recover

the fine amount by proceedings against the estate of the

deceased accused.

3
Crl. R.P.No.1830 of 2005

This revision petition is dismissed as abated subject to the

above observations and directions.

V.K.MOHANAN,
Judge.

ami/