Appeal abatement and prosecution sanction depend on statutory continuation rights and service-rule competence to remove the employee.

An appeal against conviction and sentence does not abate on the appellant's death where the governing proviso permits near relatives to continue the proceedings after leave is granted. The article also states that sanction for prosecution is valid when given by the authority competent to remove the public servant from service under the applicable service rules and a saved presidential order; on that basis, the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports was treated as the competent sanctioning authority for the relevant post. The cited contrary authority was distinguished on its facts and reasoning. The result discussed is that the abatement objection failed and the sanction challenge was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal abated on the death of the appellant, and whether the near relatives could continue it after leave was granted; (ii) Whether the sanction for prosecution granted by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports was valid in law.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal abated on the death of the appellant, and whether the near relatives could continue it after leave was granted.

Analysis: An appeal against conviction and sentence of imprisonment does not abate on the death of the appellant if the case falls within the proviso to the statutory rule governing abatement and leave is granted to near relatives to continue the appeal. The provision excluding appeals from sentence of fine from abatement, together with the leave already granted to the deceased appellant's near relatives, preserved the appeal from abatement.

Conclusion: The appeal did not abate and could be continued by the near relatives.

Issue (ii): Whether the sanction for prosecution granted by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports was valid in law.

Analysis: The competence to accord sanction depended on who was the authority competent to remove the appellant from service. Under the applicable civil services rules and the presidential order governing the office of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports was the appointing and disciplinary authority for the relevant Class III post in the headquarters office. The later rules did not displace the earlier presidential order, which was saved because no inconsistency was shown. The authority that could remove the appellant was therefore the authority competent to sanction prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The cited contrary authority was distinguished because it proceeded on concession and not on analysis of the relevant provisions.

Conclusion: The sanction was valid in law.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was not disturbed, the preliminary objection on abatement failed, and the challenge to the prosecution sanction was rejected, leaving the appeal without merit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the authority empowered to remove a public servant from service is identified by the applicable service rules and a valid saved presidential order, that authority is competent to grant sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act; and an appeal against conviction does not abate on the appellant's death when the applicable proviso permits near relatives to continue it.

---