3 s.c.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS 943

some assistance in interpreting the word "mine" under section 2(a)(i).

Serajuddin &:: Co •.

•• T!ieir Workmen We must, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the reference by the State Govemment of West Bengal in the present case was valid.

The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs,

Gajtndragodk11r J.

Appeal dismissed.

THE STATE OF KERALA

NARAYAN! AMMA KAMALA DEVI

(J. L. KAPUR, K. C. DAs GUPTA and

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.)

Criminal Trial-Conviction-Death of accused-Revision ta High Court, after the death of the accused if maintainable- Appellate and Revisianal jurisdiction-Distinction between- Cade of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), ss. 481, 439.

One N, a cashier of a bank, was convicted of an offence under s. 381 of the Indian Penal Code on a charge of theft of a certain amount belonging to the Bank and was convicted to one year's rigorous imprisonment.

His appeal to the Sessions Court was unsuccessful.

On that very date within few hours after the pronouncement of the judgment by the

Sessions Court he died. A revision petition was filed in the High Court by his wife and his fwo minor sons under s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The High Court of Kerala set aside the conviction of the deceased accused. The

State of Kerala came up in an appeal to the Supreme Court by a certificate granted by the High Court.

The question is whether an application for revision under s. 439 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure could be entertained by the High Court after the death of the accused person against whom the order was made.

Held, that in a proper case the High Court can exercise its power of revision of an order made against an accused person even after hi• death, and the High C@urt was right in

March 19.

l:MZ holding that the application for re.vision could be entertained under s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The State of Ktraia

•· Held, with regard to the revisional jurisdiction of the Nara; a11i Ammti High Court there is no prc)\ision siniilar to s. 431 of the Co<lc, J; amala Drri ior is there any provision \\hthcr a rc\isional application ra11 Ue or l:annot be made in.respect of an order of conviction when the convicted person is dead.

The opening words of s. 4:J9 of the Code, produce the result that revisional jurisdiction can be C)\ercised by the High Court by being moved either by the convicted person himself or by any other person or sue u1otu, on the basis of its own knowledge derived from any source whatsoever without being moved by any person at all.

All that is necessary to bring the High Court's powers of revision into operation is such inforn1ation a:-> n1akes the High Court think that an order made by a Subordinate Court is fit for the exercise of its po\vers of revision.

DosJ.

1, hc important <lictinction bct\\'Ccn ss. 1-31 and 439 is that while the appellate jurisdictio11 can be exercised only after an appeal is filed by the convicted person or against an order of acquittal under ss. 41 I or 417, there is no such limita

tion on the court's revisional jurisdiction.

Impcratrix v. Dongaji Andaji, (1878) I.L.R. llom. 564 referred to.

l'ranab Kumar Mitra v .. State of .lresl Bengal, (1959) Supp. 1 S.C.R. 63, relied on.

Cu.u.!INAL APPELLATE Jumsn1cTrn~ : Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1961.

Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 5, 1960, of the Kerala High Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. :rn7 of 1959.

G. S. Pathak and V. A. Seyid Muhammad, for tho appellant.

C. K. Siva.sankara Panickar, R. Malu:ilingier and M. R. K. Pillai, for the respondents.

1962. l'vlaroh 19.

The Judgment of tho Court

WWI delivered by

DAS GUl'TA, J .-Can an application for revision under e.439 of the Criminal Procedure Code be entertained by the High Court after the death of

the accused person agajnst whom the order was made ? That is the important question raised in this appeal.

Gobindankutty Nair, a Cashier of the Trivandrum Branch of the State Bank of India was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Trivandrum, of an offence under section 381 0£ the Indian Penal Code on a charge of theft of an amount of Bs. 10,000/- belonging to the Bank. A Fiat Car which has been purchased by the' accused was seized by the police duringthe investigation of the .case and it was alleged that this had been purchased with the money stolen by the accused.

The car was sold under the orders of the Court and the sale proceeds deposited in Court. The Magistrate sentenced the accused to ri1wrous imprisonment for one year and also ordered that the sale proceeds of the car would be withdrawn by the Head Cashier of the Bank for appropriation towards the amount proved to have been stolen by the

accused.·

The accused's appeal to the Sessions Court was unsuccessful.

Though no separate order W.'J.S made by the Sessions Court in respect of tli e Magistrate's order for withdrawal of the sale proceeds of the car by the Head Cashier, that order was also by implication affirmed bv him. The Sessions Court delivered judgment on August 13, 1959, and on that very date within a few hours of the pronouncement of judgment the accused Gobindankutty Nair died. On November 11, 1959, the widow of the accued and his two minor sons presented an application under s.439 in the High Court of Judicature of Kerala against this judgment of the Sessions Court.

They prayed that the order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused and also the order as regards the sale proceeds of the mer &hould be set aside. The High Court rejected a preliminary contention raised on behalf or the State of Kerala that the accused

1Y62

The State of Kera/a

Jlaravani Amma K a1llo.la Dvi

DasJ.

J9fi2

The Stare of lie1a/rr

• v.

J{taJani Amm J

Kat)ia/a Dti i

Das J.

Gobindankutty Xair having died, this application for revision was not maintainabl". It then considered the application on its merits and set aside the convietion oft.he accust'd and also the order dirt•cting the payment of the sale proci>eds of the motor car to the Head Cashier. The High Court however granted a certificate under Art. 134(I)(c) of the Constitution that this was a fit caso for appeal to this Court and on hat certificate this appeal has been preferred by the State of Kerala.

The principal point urged in Rupport of the appeal is that after the death of the accused no revision application lay to the High Court againt the order of the Sef!Bion~ Court maintaining his conviction.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has based his argument in support of this contention on the principle cmbodiod in the maxim actio persanali,.~ moritur cum. persrma and has urgf'd that except where the stn, tute has stepped in to make any special provisions no proceedings either against the accused or on behalf of the accucd can be entertained or continued in t.he Court in respect of any crime said to have been committ.ed by a person after the death of such person. He has dra.wn our attention to Salmond's obAOITationA in his "Jurisprudence" Ele"Ventb Edition, page 442 : That criminal responsibility muAt dit• witb wrong

door himself, and has urged that as all criminal proceedings 1tre personal actions, proceedins in connection with a crime can, in the absence of any statutory provision, neither be comm<'nced or continued against an accused person or on his bPhalfunlcss hn is. in existence. It may be noted however tha.t Salmond himself goes on to say in discusing the matter that the modern opinion rejects the conclusion based on the received ma.xim actio personalis morit11r cum persona, that all actions for penal redress mut be brought against a living offender and must die with him. "'hat is more important to notice is th1't we are not concerned here with the question of

criminal proceedings being continued or commenced against a person but with the question whether when a criminal proceeding has ended unfavourably to an accuaed person, an action can be take~ in the

Court in respect thereof. On this question the common law maxim is of little, if any, use and the answer to the question must be found in other provisions of law.

The Criminal Procedure Code gives a right of appeal to the convicted person in certain cases. if, after the conviction and before an appeal has been filed the convicted person dies, there is no provision for any appeal on his behalf. What will happen when after an appeal has been filed by the convicted person, he dies, is provided for in s. 4:ll of the

Criminal Procedure Code. That section provides that every appeal against acquittal and every other appeal under Chapter XXXI except an appeal from a sentence of fine shall finally abate on the death of the appella, nt. The High .Court or the Court of Sessions cannot therefore exercise its appellate jurisdiction in favour of a dead person even if an appeal has been filed by him, except in an appeal from a sentence of fine. ·

As regards the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court there is no provision similar to s. 431.

Nor is there any provision whether a revisional application can be or cannot be made in respect of an order of conviction when the convicted person is dead. We cannot but notice the important distinction that while the appellate jurisdiction can be exercised only after an appeal is filed by the convicted person -or against an order of acquittal under s. 411 ors. 417, there is no such limitation on the Court's revisional jurisdiction. ·

The opening words of s. 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, viz., "in the ca.se of any proceedings the record of which ha3 been called for by itself or which has been reported for orders or

Tiu Stata of Kuala •• • Narayon: Amma

Kamila Devi

DasJ.

Tht .Slate Qj Kuala

v, JVara1a11i Amina

K11malr:: Dt1:i

DasJ.

which otherwise come8 to its knowledge", produce the result that rcvisional jurisdiction can be exercised hy the High Court by being moved either by the convicted person himself or by any other person or suo morn, on tho basi8 of its own knowledge deriver! from any source whatsoever without being moved by any person at all.

All that is necessary to bring tho High Court's powers of revision into operation is, such information as makes the High Court think that an order made by a Subordinate Court. is fit for the exercise of its powers of revision.

But, says llfr.

Pathak, look at the words that follow in this section stating what powers can he cxerdscd.

Thest\ words, viz., tho High Court may in its discretion exercise any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal by es. 42a, 426, 427, and 128 ........ make it clear that a High Court's power of nwision docs not extend to anything more than what the court of appeal can do. When therefore a court of appeal cannot give any rolief in respect of. an order of conviction and sentence of fine or anv other order made against an accused person after the accused person is dead, how cn, n the High Conrt in revision give any such relief a.fter the accuRed person's death. This argument confuses the definition of the extent of power with the conditions for the exercise of the power.

The conditions for the exercise of the power of revision are laid down in the opening clauses of s. 439 which has ju8t bel'n set out above, while the next clause thn, t the High Court may exercise any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal undor s. 4:!3, s. 426, s. 427 and s. 428 ......... define the extent of the power. The fact that the extent of the power of a court in rnvision docs not extend-except as regards the power of the courts by s. 4:39 to enhancement of the sentenm to more than what the appellate court's po1rnr, does not effect tho position that while the conditions for the exercise of the powers of courts of appeal is

that an appeal must be preferred by the convicted person, that condition is conspicuous by its absence where the conditions of the exercise of the powers of revision are laid down in s. 439.

Tlte State of Kera/a v.

Narayani A.mma

Kamala Devi It appears to us therefore that in a. proper Das J. case the High Court can exercise its power of revision of an order made against an accused person 11ven after his death.

This view was expressed by the Bombay High Court in I mperatrix v. DongaJ°i Andaji\ 1).

The direct question in that case was whether the appeal lodged by a convicted person abates on his death.

Melvill J. and Kem ball J. differed on this question.

Melvill J. being of the opinion that on the death of the appellant the appeal abated while Kemball J. came to a contrary conclusion. Chief Justice Westropp, to whom the case was referred agreed with Melvill J. that the appeal abated. All the three !ear- , ned Judges appear to have however been of opinion that the death of convicted person would be no impediment in the way of the court's exercising its power of revision. Melvill J. observed :-

"In a recent case the Chief Justice and myself did consider the proceedings in a criminal case after the death of the convict.

But the proceedings in that case had been called for under s. 297, and we were sitting as a Court of Revision. No person has any right to be heard before the High Court in the exercise of its powers of revision. The Court is.not supposed to be _acting on the application of the convict, hut in the exercise of its power of supervision over subordinate courts, and with a view to correcting their errors. I think that we should have power to interfere in the present case, as a Court of Revision, if we saw any error, in law, invalidating the conviction, or if the sentence were too severs

(1) (1878) I.L.R. (Born.) 564.

Tiu Stott of Keralo

N., ayani Ammo

KunaU 1. tvi

DOJJ.

for the offence which has been he l<l by the Sessions Court to be proved. But I can Ree no error in law, nor is the sentence excessive. if the facts be as th11 Sessions Court has found thorn. ?le cannot therefore exercise our powers of revision ......... "

Kemball J. has also observed :- "I have no doubt that, as a Court of Reviaion, wo could dispose of this caso " Chief Justice Wcstropp, after expressing his opinion that the appeal has abated, went on to observe : -

"I think that the High Court lms, howcvm-, the right to call for the record, and make such order thereon as it may deem to ht> due to justice. I do not understand that my oµiniu11 is required by my brothers i\lelvill and Komball on the question whether such a case

has been made as to render it desirable that the record should be brought up." It is thus clear thRt though apparently the High Court's powers of revisions were not exercised in that case, all the three judges agreed in thinking that in a proper case this could and should Le done even after the death of the convicted person.

This case was considered Ly this Court in Pranab Kumar Mitra v. 'l'he Susie of IVe..st JJenyal (1).

The question in Pranab Kumar Mitra's case was whether where the Pccuse<l has been sentenced to a fine and imprisonment till the rising of the Court and the convicted persorr ha<l served out his nominal sentence of imprisonment and died when his application in revision was pen<liug before the High Court, the High Court could exercise its powers uf revision in respect of the question of conviction and sentence. It was held that such powers could be

(1) (1959) Supp. 1 s.c.R. 63.

3 S.(\R.

SUPREM~ COURT REPOH.TS

!J51

exercised and could not be limited on the analogy of s. 431 of the Code which did not apply to a revision case. After referring to the decision of the Bombay High Oourtin Dongaji Andaji's Case (1) and the distinction drawn bJ the learned Judges therein between the High Court's power to deal . with an appeal on the death of a convicted person and its power to exercise revisional jurisdiction even after such death, this Court went un to observe at p. 70 of the Report :-

"We may assume that the Legislature was aware of the decision of the Bombay High Court, referred to above, when it enacted s. 431 for the first time in the Code of 1882.

If the Legislature intended that an application in revision pending in a High Court, should be dealt with on the oame footing as a pending appeal it would have enacted accordingly.

But in the absence of any such enactment, we may infer that the power of revision vested in the High Court under Chapter XXXII of the Code, was left untouched-to be exercised according to the exigencies of each case." It appears to us that though in Pranab Kumars Case (') thIB Court was directly concerned with the effect of a convicted person's death on a pending revisional application, the judgment also expresses the view that a revisional application could be entertained even after the deat'h of the convicted person. On this authority and also for the reasons discussed earlier, we have come to the conclusion that the High Court was right in holding that the application for revision could be entertained under s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

We see no reason also to interfere with the order made by the High Court in exercise of such power of revision.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Appe, al dismissed.

(I) ( 1878) I.L.R. (Bom.) 564.

(2) (1959) Supp. 1 s.c.R.63.

19(}2

The State nf Kerala

Noraponi Amma

Kafflala Devi

DosJ.