(1.) One Shankar Prasad Ghosh had filed the present appeal before this Court questioning correctness of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court. By a common judgment the learned Special Judge (CBI, South Bihar, Patna had found each of the accused persons guilty of offence punishable under Sections 409, 477A read with Sections 34, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). It also found the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 4(1)(c) and Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the Act). Various custodial sentences and fine were imposed. The judgment of the Special Judge was assailed in appeal before the High Court which dismissed the appeal. The High Court upheld the conviction but altered the sentences to the period already undergone. The fine amount was, however, maintained alongwith default stipulation.
(2.) In this case leave was granted on 20-4-1998 but no stay was granted. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant-Shankar Prasad Ghosh died on 15-5-2000. After about 5 years applications have been filed purportedly in terms of Section 394(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased appellant for the purpose of continuance of the appeal. On 15-3-2007 it was directed that the applications shall be considered when the appeal will be taken up for hearing.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that there is no scope for accepting the applications. Section 394 has no application to the appeal before the Supreme Court. In any event, time statutorily prescribed is 30 days. In the instant case, applications have been filed nearly 5 years after the date of the death of the appellant-Shankar Prasad Ghosh. Even no explanation has been offered as to why the applications were filed after such a long time. Accordingly, he submitted that there is no scope for condoning any delay beyond the fixed period of 30 days.