IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Appeal No.203 of 2005 With CRMA 1571/2011 CRMA 1572/2011 Madan Mohan Dhasmana … Appellant Versus State of Uttaranchal … Opposite Party Sri Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the appellant Sri Arvind Vashisth, Advocate assisted by Sri P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder, on behalf of CBI Dated: December 27, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Heard upon the leave application no.1572 of 2011 filed by Smt. Kamla Devi Dhasmana along with the delay condonation application no.1571 of 2011. Facts of the case are that appellant Madan Mohan Dhasmana, the then Principal of a Government Higher Secondary School, was found guilty by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Nainital on 5.11.2005 and was sentenced to undergo two years’ R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/- u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter to be referred as the Act]. He was further sentenced to undergo two years’ R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act. It was also directed that in case of default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo three months’ R.I. under both the sections. The learned Judge passed the above sentence while concluding the Special Criminal Case No.6 of 2003, pertaining to crime no.98 of 2000. The appellant preferred this appeal on 8.11.2005 and vid order dated 9.11.2005, he was directed to be released on bail by this Court. 2 During pendency of this appeal, the appellant Madan Mohan Dhasmana died on 27.12.2009, as revealed by Annexure No.1 filed with the Leave Application. Now, these applications for condonation of delay and continuance of appeal have been moved by Smt. Kamla Devi Dhasmana on 23.12.2011, i.e. a little more than after two years. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant- Smt. Kamla Devi Dhasmana has argued that in the interest of justice, the applicant (wife) should be permitted to continue the appeal, as is provided under Section 394 Cr.P.C. because after the retirement of the deceased, no post retiral benefits have been granted to her due to the pendency of this appeal. Learned counsel appearing for respondent opposed these applications on the ground that there is an excessive delay in moving these applications, whereas, there is an established principle of criminal jurisprudence that ignorance of law is no excuse. Otherwise also, there is a mandate under Section 394 Cr.P.C. by using the word “shall” for abatement of appeals. However, Proviso to that section envisages that the Court “may” permit the continuance of appeal if the spouse of the deceased apply within 30 days of the death for continuation of the appeal. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Hariprasad Chhapolia v. Union of India reported in (2008) 7 SCC 690” has also held that unsatisfactory explanation given for delay e.g. ignorance of legal representatives regarding substitution application and consequential failure to inform counsel regarding death of accused are without substance. In such matters, the appeal should not be allowed to be continued by the spouse. In view of the above precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is not inclined to accept both these 3 applications. Hence, these applications are rejected. In consequence, the appeal abates. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 27.12.2011