Criminal appeal abatement on death: delayed substitution by legal heirs fails absent sufficient cause for delay.

Section 394 CrPC principles apply to criminal appeals before the Supreme Court under Article 136. An appeal against a sentence of imprisonment abates on the appellant's death unless the legal representatives seek leave within the prescribed period and show sufficient cause for any delay. Where the substitution application is filed long after death and the explanation for delay is not acceptable, the appeal cannot be continued. In this instance, the delayed application by the heirs was rejected and the appeal had abated.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal appeal survived the death of the appellant and whether the delayed application by the legal heirs for substitution and continuance of the appeal could be accepted.

Analysis: The principles underlying Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were held applicable to criminal appeals before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. An appeal against a sentence of imprisonment abates on the death of the appellant unless the legal representatives seek leave within the prescribed period and show sufficient cause for delay. Here, the application was filed nearly one year after the death of the appellant, and the explanation offered for the delay was found unacceptable.

Conclusion: The appeal had abated on the death of the appellant, and the delayed substitution application was not accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: In a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court, the death of the appellant causes abatement unless the legal representatives apply within the prescribed time and justify any delay; where no acceptable explanation is shown, the appeal cannot be continued.

---