ASLAM AFJAL BUWA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) The applicant is accused no.1. The applicant and one Bhauso Malgonda Patil were charged for an offence of deception of the complainant by dishonestly inducing him to deliver cash amount of Rs.5,000/- for getting employment for his son. The applicant along with Patil was tried before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class in Regular Criminal Case No.249/93. By a judgment and order dated 31st July 1995, the learned Magistrate held the applicant as well as the accused no.2 Bhauso Patil guilty of the offence of cheating punishable under sec. 420 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and directed them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. The applicant challenged the said decision by filing Criminal Appeal No.81 of 1995. The co-accused Patil also challenged the said decision by filing Criminal Appeal No.82 of 1995. By a common judgment and order dated 14th July 1998, the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur dismissed both the appeals and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. Being aggrieved by the said order, the accused no.2 filed Criminal Revision Application NO.174 of 1998 in this Court. By a judgment and order dated 18th June 2007, this Court upheld his conviction but modified the sentence by reducing the sentence of imprisonment to period already undergone and increasing the fine amount of Rs.500/- to 3,500/-. The applicant has filed the present revision application challenging his conviction.

(3.) During the pendency of the revision application, the applicant died and his heirs have been brought on record. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that so far as the order of sentence of imprisonment is concerned, the revision stands abated on death of the applicant. However, since there is an order of imposition of fine of Rs.500/-, the heirs who have been brought on record are entitled to challenge the same. In support of his submission, he refers to and relies upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Pranab Kumar Mitra V/s. State of West Bengal, 1959 AIR(SC) 144 and State of Kerala V/s. Narayani Amma Kamala, 1962 AIR(SC) 1530. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the revision application is maintainable and is heard on merits.