Biju.K.B vs Vikraman Pillai And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 9974 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
    MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 27TH BHADRA, 1945
                    CRL.REV.PET NO. 795 OF 2011
  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT CRA 313/2009 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT
                    (ADHOC)-II, PATHANAMTHITTA
         ST 991/2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
                        -II,PATHANAMTHITTA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
           BIJU.K.BKALEEKAL VEEDU, MUDIYOORKONAM.P.O.,, PANDALAM,
           PATHANAMTHITTA.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI. K.SHAJ
          SRI.SAJJU.S


RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
     1     VIKRAMAN PILLAI AND ANOTHERMUDIYOORKONAM.P.O.,
           PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 501.

    2     STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA -68201.

          BY ADV SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR


     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 18.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.REV.PET NO. 795 OF 2011
                              2




                         ORDER

The revision petition is filed challenging the

judgment passed by the Court of the Additional

Sessions Judge (Adhoc) II, Pathanamthitta, in Crl.A

No.313/2009, wherein the said Court confirmed the

conviction passed by the Court of the Judicial First

Class Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta in ST No.991/2008

as against the revision petitioner for an offence under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and

sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till the rising

of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-

to the first respondent, and in default to undergo simple

imprisonment for a further period of three months.

2. When the revision petition came up for

consideration on 7.12.2016, it was reported that the

revision petitioner was no more.

3. Consequently, this Court had called for a report CRL.REV.PET NO. 795 OF 2011

from the Sub Inspector of Police, Panthalam, to

ascertain as to whether the revision petitioner is dead.

The Sub Inspector, by communication dated

5.12.2016, has informed this Court that the revision

petitioner died on 25.12.2016. A copy of the death

certificate was also forwarded to this Court.

4. Then, this Court, by order dated 8.12.2016,

adjourned the revision to enable the legal heirs of the

deceased revision petitioner to come on record, if they

are so desirous. Even though the case was posted on

two subsequent dates, no one has come on record .

5. In Pazhani v. State of Kerala [2017 (1) KLT

341 (FB)], a Full Bench of this Court has categorically

held that, if an accused dies during the pendency of an

appeal/revision petition, and there is sentence of fine

or compensation to be paid, then the near relatives of

the deceased can come on record and continue to

prosecute the appeal/revision petition, for which no CRL.REV.PET NO. 795 OF 2011

time period is fixed. However, if no such application is

filed, then the appeal/revision petition has to be

consigned to the record room.

6. In the light of the above exposition of law in

Pazhani (supra) and as no near relatives have come on

record even after seven years of the death of the

revision petitioner, the revision petition is to be

confined to the record room.

Resultantly, this revision petition is disposed of by

consigning the revision petition to the record room.

                                   Sd/-C.S.DIAS
ma/18.9.2023                           JUDGE