BAL KRISHAN JOSHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Misc. Leave Application no. 1019 of 2011 has been moved by Smt. Jiwanti Devi, who is wife of revisionist Sri Bal Krishan Joshi (new deceased), to substitute herself as revisionist for contesting this revision. It is pertinent to mention that this revision was filed against the order of acquittal dated 16.07.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/1st FTC, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 380 of 2002.

(2.) SRI Bal Krishan Joshi after filing of this revision has died on 18.08.2010. Learned counsel for the applicant - Smt. Jiwanti Devi has relied upon the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of P.R. Anjanappa Vs. M/s Yurej Agencies Put. Ltd. reported in : 2004 Cri L.J. 2565 wherein the Karnataka High Court has held that if the convict died during the pendency of the appeal, then the appeal is abated only when the appellant was convicted with a sentence of imprisonment only. If he was convicted with a sentence of imprisonment and a fine; or with a fine only, then the appeal is not abated because the fine is recoverable from these legal heirs.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant - Smt. Jiwanti Devi has also relied upon the judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Mohinder Dutt Sharma Vs. Bhagat Ram and another reported in : 2002 Cri. L.J. 529 wherein the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that in the matters of Section 401, 403, 482 Cr.P.C. where the complainant/informant dies then the substitution of legal representatives can well be allowed during the pendency of the revision. The High Court, in exercise of inherent power, is competent to implead the legal representatives of the deceased complainant and afford him opportunity of being heard in the interest of justice.