REV BISHOP CHACKO Vs. JAYAPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Concurrent verdicts of guilty rendered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short, the 'N.I. Act', is challenged by him in the revision. The learned Magistrate, after trial, convicting him of the offence sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. In appeal, the Additional Sub-Judge Kottayam, confirmed the conviction and upheld the sentence without any modification. Questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the conviction and sentence, concurrently held by both the courts below, the revision has been filed.

(2.) When the revision was taken up for hearing, it was reported that the accused is no more; and his counsel requested for closing the proceedings as abated. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant, however, urged for disposal of revision on merits, submitting that the death of the accused after the revision being admitted and taken on file by this court, does not lead to abatement of the proceedings and the revision has to be disposed on its merits. It was also submitted by the counsel that at the time of admitting the revision suspension of the sentence imposed against the accused was ordered subject to the condition of depositing one half of the cheque amount, and according to the counsel, disposal of the revision on merits would enable the complainant at least to collect the amount deposited by the accused as compensation if appropriate orders are passed by this court modifying the sentence. After successful prosecution, ending in the conviction of the accused, which was confirmed in appeal also, if the entire proceedings are treated as abated on account of the death of the accused during the pendency of the revision filed by him against his conviction, it is the submission of the counsel, it would cause irreparable hardship and injury to the complainant, and further, it would amount to miscarriage of justice. Though on the death of the accused/ revision petitioner, the engagement given to his counsel has ceased and counsel for the petitioner and also the complainant were requested to enlighten the legal aspects emerging on the death of the accused after the revision has been admitted and taken on file. Advocate Sri Bechu Kurian Thomas, who appeared for the revision petitioner, while expressing his inability to act as an amicus curiae of the Court, placed before me the legal principles of consideration in resolving the question arising for consideration. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant, Advocate Sri. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup also brought to my notice the decisions of the Apex Court and also of his court, which have a bearing on the question. I place on record my appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the respective counsel.

(3.) The following questions emerge for consideration in the revision: