IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 782 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.265/1998 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.594/1995 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------- SIDHARAJ, S/O. GOVINDA CHETTIAR, PROPRIETOR M/S. SIVARAM EXPORTS, GUGUI, SALEM-6. TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ----------------------- 1. M/S. INDEV SHIPPING SERVICES (COCHIN) (P) LTD., PLOT No.22 (D) CAT III XXIV/1572, SUBRAMANIAN ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND COCHIN-3. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: AMG S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.782 OF 2001 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October 2011 ORDER There is no representation for the revision petitioner consistently for the last three postings. Going through the endorsements made, it is seen, previously the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has reported that the revision petitioner/accused is no more. A direction, it is seen, has been issued for production of the death certificate. No such certificate has been produced. So far as the revision is concerned, the abatement of the proceedings on death of the revision petitioner does not take place. Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable only with respect to appeal when the appellant passed away before the disposal of the appeal. A revision cannot be dismissed for default also. That being so, I have perused the judgments rendered by both the courts below to examine the legality, propriety and correctness of the conviction entered against the accused in the present case, who has been convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. I find no infirmity in the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/accused. Revision is dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge