Composite Sentence Of Fine & Imprisonment Was Imposed: Kerala HC Permits Deceased Appellant’s Wife To Continue With Criminal Appeal
|When A Composite Sentence Of Fine & Imprisonment Is Imposed, Appeal Will Not Abate
The Kerala High Court permitted the wife of a deceased individual to continue with the appeal while observing that the sentence imposed by the Court was a composite sentence of fine and imprisonment.
The Court said that, in such situations, the Court is bound to decide the appeal on merits after giving sufficient opportunity to the near relatives of the deceased appellant to proceed with the appeal against the sentence of fine.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal arising from an order of the Session's Judge that dismissed the application of the deceased appellant’s wife to continue with the appeal under proviso to section 394 of the Cr.P.C.
A Single Bench of Justice K. Babu while noting that the Sessions Court erroneously understood the import of Section 53 IPC and Section 357 Cr.P.C. and observed, "The sentence of fine imposed is fundamentally a punishment as defined under Section 53 of the IPC. Undoubtedly, the sentence imposed in the present case is a composite sentence of fine and imprisonment. Therefore, the appeal shall not abate on the death of the appellant and the court is bound to decide the appeal on merits after giving sufficient opportunity to the near relatives of the appellant to proceed with the appeal against the sentence of fine."
Adv R. Premchand appeared for the Petitioner and Adv. George Mathew Karamayil for the Respondents
Brief Facts:
The Original appellant in the present case was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, of 1881 and was sentenced. He died after after filing appeal against the conviction. The Appellant's wife sought to continue with the appeal, but the Sessions Judge dismissed the petition, stating that the appeal had abated with the death of the Appellant.
The Court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Ramesan (Dead) Through LR Girija A. v. State of Kerala [(2020) 3 SCC 45] and observed, “the appeal shall not abate on the death of the appellant and the court is bound to decide the appeal on merits after giving sufficient opportunity to the near relatives of the appellant to proceed with the appeal against the sentence of fine.”
Further, the Court noted that the reason for the delay in filing the application is self-explanatory. It held, "This is the case where a young lady of 43 years, after the untimely death of her husband, could only file the application seeking leave after a delay of 20 days. The reason for the delay is self- explanatory."
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal and directed the Sessions Judge to proceed with the appeal.
Cause Title: Dhanya Sajith v. Mr. Binoy Mathew
Appearance:
Petitioner: Adv. R. Premchand, A.A. Dilshah and Adv. M. Veena
Respondent: Adv. George Mathew Karamayil, Adv. Sunil Kumar A.G., Adv. Mathew K.T., Adv. George K.V., Adv. Stephy K Regi, Adv. Medha B.S. and Adv. C.N. Prabhakaran