Composite criminal sentence and abatement: legal representative may continue the appeal, and delay in substitution can be condoned.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act was treated as capable of applying to the special limitation under Section 394(2) CrPC through Section 29(2), and the delay in moving to bring the legal representative on record was held condonable. In a criminal appeal arising from a composite sentence of imprisonment and fine, the court applied the principle that death of the appellant does not abate the appeal so far as the fine is concerned. Because the conviction and fine were inter-linked, the legal representative was entitled to continue the appeal against the entire conviction and substantive sentence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether delay in filing the petition to bring the legal representative on record and continue the appeal could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the face of the limitation period under Section 394(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether, where the conviction carried a composite sentence of imprisonment and fine, the deceased appellant's widow could continue the appeal against the entire conviction.

Issue (i): Whether delay in filing the petition to bring the legal representative on record and continue the appeal could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the face of the limitation period under Section 394(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 enables the application of Sections 4 to 24 of that Act to limitation periods prescribed by a special law, unless excluded. The judgment accepted that the question of applicability of Section 5 had to be examined in the context of the special limitation under the Code. On the facts presented, the delay was considered capable of being condoned.

Conclusion: The delay was condonable and was directed to be condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether, where the conviction carried a composite sentence of imprisonment and fine, the deceased appellant's widow could continue the appeal against the entire conviction.

Analysis: The judgment applied the principle that an appeal from a judgment imposing a sentence of fine, whether alone or along with imprisonment, does not abate on the appellant's death. It also treated the validity of the conviction and the sentence of fine as inter-linked, so that an appellate challenge to the fine necessarily involves scrutiny of the conviction itself. On that basis, the legal representative was held entitled to prosecute the appeal not merely on the fine portion but against the entire conviction and substantive sentence as well.

Conclusion: The legal representative was entitled to continue the appeal against the entire conviction.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the order refusing condonation was set aside, and the legal representative was permitted to carry forward the criminal appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: In a criminal appeal arising from a composite sentence of imprisonment and fine, the death of the accused does not abate the appeal insofar as the sentence of fine is concerned, and the legal representative may continue the appeal; where the conviction and fine are inter-linked, the challenge may extend to the entire conviction, and delay in bringing the legal representative on record may be condoned where the statute permits application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

---