Abatement on death and proof of demand in corruption cases: late continuation failed, and conviction fell for lack of reliable evidence.

An appeal under Section 394 CrPC abates on the appellant's death unless a qualified relative seeks leave within the prescribed time and shows sufficient cause for delay; a belated application filed nearly ten years later was rightly rejected, so the appeal abated as to the deceased appellant. In the corruption prosecution, the conviction could not be sustained because the prosecution failed to prove demand of illegal gratification by reliable evidence, and the presumption arising from acceptance of gratification could not replace proof of the foundational facts. The surviving appellant was therefore acquitted and his conviction and sentence set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal could be continued by the deceased appellant's legal representative after death of the appellant in the absence of an application within the statutory period and without sufficient cause for delay; (ii) Whether the conviction of the surviving appellant for corruption could be sustained on the evidence, particularly in the absence of satisfactory proof of demand of gratification.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal could be continued by the deceased appellant's legal representative after death of the appellant in the absence of an application within the statutory period and without sufficient cause for delay.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that an appeal abates on the death of the appellant, subject only to a limited right of certain relatives to seek leave to continue the appeal within 30 days. The application to continue the appeal was filed nearly ten years after the death, and no satisfactory explanation was offered for the prolonged delay or for failure to approach the Court within the prescribed time. The asserted consequence of possible benefits on acquittal did not constitute sufficient cause.

Conclusion: The application to continue the appeal was rightly rejected and the appeal abated so far as the deceased appellant was concerned.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction of the surviving appellant for corruption could be sustained on the evidence, particularly in the absence of satisfactory proof of demand of gratification.

Analysis: A presumption of corrupt motive may arise only after acceptance of gratification not being legal remuneration, but it remains rebuttable and the foundational facts of demand and receipt must be proved by reliable evidence. The evidence adduced did not satisfactorily establish the alleged demand for bribe, and the prosecution did not examine independent witnesses from among the villagers to substantiate the alleged collection of mamools. In these circumstances, the explanation offered by the appellant could not be rejected merely on suspicion, and the conviction could not stand.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence of the surviving appellant were set aside and he was acquitted.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding ended with abatement as to the deceased appellant and acquittal of the surviving appellant, resulting in partial success for the appellants on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal under Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 abates on death unless a qualified relative seeks leave within the prescribed time and shows sufficient cause for delay, and in a corruption prosecution the presumption arising from acceptance of gratification cannot sustain a conviction unless the prosecution first proves demand and receipt of illegal gratification by reliable evidence.

---