1964 (3) TMI 90 - SC - Indian Laws

Legal representatives cannot continue appeal after appellant's death, as sentence becomes ineffective. Appeal abated, no direct interest.

BONDADA GAJAPATHI RAO Versus STATE OF AP

The court held that the legal representatives were not entitled to continue the appeal after the death of the appellant, as the sentence of imprisonment ... - Issues Involved:1. Continuation of appeal after the death of the appellant.2. Applicability of Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. Legal representatives' interest in the appeal.4. Distinction between revisional and appellate powers.5. Precedents from English and American courts.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Continuation of Appeal After the Death of the Appellant:The primary issue was whether the legal representatives of the deceased appellant, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, could continue the appeal after his death. The appeal was initially filed under Article 136 of the Constitution, and the appellant died pending the appeal. The legal representatives sought leave to continue the appeal, arguing that the sentence of imprisonment, though no longer executable, still affected the deceased's estate.2. Applicability of Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that appeals under Sections 411A(2) and 417 shall abate on the death of the accused, except for appeals against sentences of fine. The court noted that this section did not apply proprio vigore to appeals under Article 136. However, the principle underlying Section 431 was considered relevant. The court emphasized that the sentence of imprisonment became infructuous upon the appellant's death, and there was no one who could be imprisoned.3. Legal Representatives' Interest in the Appeal:The legal representatives argued that setting aside the conviction would entitle the deceased's estate to receive full salary from the government, as the appellant was dismissed from service upon his conviction. The court found this contention inaccurate, stating that the setting aside of the conviction would not directly entitle the legal representatives to the salary. They would need to obtain necessary orders from the government, and it was not shown that such orders would automatically follow the setting aside of the conviction. Therefore, the court held that the legal representatives were not entitled to continue the appeal.4. Distinction Between Revisional and Appellate Powers:The court distinguished between revisional and appellate powers, noting that revisional powers under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be exercised suo motu, whereas appellate powers required the presence of a party to prosecute the appeal. The court cited the decision in Pranab Kumar Mitra v. The State of West Bengal, where it was held that the High Court could determine a case even after the death of the convicted person if there was a sentence of fine, as it affected the property of the deceased in the hands of his legal representative. However, this principle did not extend to sentences of imprisonment.5. Precedents from English and American Courts:The court referred to English and American precedents, noting that in England, appeals from sentences of fine could be continued by the executors of the deceased appellant, but not appeals involving imprisonment. In the United States, the death of an accused ordinarily abates a criminal action, including review proceedings pending at that time. The court concluded that a criminal prosecution aimed at punishing an offender comes to an end upon the death of the accused, and the same principle applied to appeals after conviction.Judgment:The court held that the legal representatives were not entitled to continue the appeal, as the sentence of imprisonment became infructuous upon the appellant's death, and there was no direct interest of the legal representatives in the appeal. The appeal was deemed to have abated.