DEEP CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on application for abatement of appeal under Sec. 394 of CrPC filed by the respondent.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent would argue that the appeal was preferred by the deceased appellantDeep Chand who died on 5/8/2010. It is argued that after death, the appeal would abate as the deceased was convicted and sentence of imprisonment was imposed on him. Even if it is a composite sentence of fine and imprisonment, imprisonment being the main component of the sentence, the appeal would abate.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesan (Dead) Thro' LR's. Girija A. Vs. State of Kerela [2020 Cr.L.R. (SC) 173] would submit that where the sentence is composite one, not only being of imprisonment but also a fine, the appeal would not abate under the provisions of law. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in our considered opinion, where sentence is a composite one including imprisonment as well as fine, the appeal would not abate under Sec. 394 of CrPC. In the case of State Rep. by The Inspector of Police (supra), their Lordships in the Supreme Court, relying upon earlier decisions in the cases of Bondada Gajapathi Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1645, Harnam Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1975) 3 SCC 343 and Lakshmi Shanker Srivastava Vs. State, (1979) 1 SCC 229, have categorically held that in case of composite sentence comprising of imprisonment and fine, there will be no abatement of appeal. In para 16 of the aforesaid judgment, it was held as below:-