[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Muhammed Rasheed * (Expired) vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2026
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1300 of 2014 1
2026:KER:10685
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 6
TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 17TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1300 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.10.2013 IN CC NO.378 OF 2012
OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD, ARISING OUT OF THE
JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2014 IN CRL.A NO.166 OF 2013 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
MUHAMMED RASHEED (EXPIRED)
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. K.K. SHERIEF, R/AT JARA HOUSE,
JARAKADAPPURAM, HOSEBETTU VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
SHO MANJESHWAR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP, SRI. ALEX M. THOMBRA
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1300 of 2014 2
2026:KER:10685
ORDER
This revision petition is filed under Section 397 r/w Section
401 of Cr.P.C. by the 2nd accused in C.C.No.378 of 2012, on the
file of the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod. By the
judgment dated 10.10.2013, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
found the petitioner and his co-accused guilty of the offence under
Section 379 r/w Section 34 of IPC and sentenced the petitioner to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay
a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 379 r/w Section 34 of IPC and
in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was
acquitted of the offence under Section 392 r/w Section 34 of the
IPC, for which also he faced the trial. By the common judgment
dated 11.04.2014 in Crl.A.Nos.153 of 2013 and 166 of 2013, the
Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kasaragod, confirmed the conviction
and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the trial court. It is
challenging the judgments of the trial court and the appellate
court; the present revision petition has been filed.
2. On 22.07.2014, when this revision petition came up for
admission, this Court, as per the order in Crl. M.A.No.4598 of 2014
2026:KER:10685
suspended the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner on a
condition that he shall execute a bond with two solvent sureties
for Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court.
3. Since there was repeated non-representation for the
revision petitioner, on 31.01.2025, this Court issued notice to the
revision petitioner through the SHO concerned.
4. In pursuance to the aforesaid direction, the SHO
concerned has reported that the revision petitioner died on
13.06.2022 and produced the Death Certificate issued by the
Registrar of Births and Deaths, Manjeshwar Grama Panchayat,
which shows that the revision petitioner died on 13.06.2022 at
11.30 a.m.
5. In Syed Shahnawaz Ali v. State of Madhya
Pradesh [2026 (1) KHC 125], the Apex Court considered the
issue whether on the death of the revisionist, the revision
proceedings under Section 379 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C would
abate. Paragraphs 12 and 17 of that decision read thus;
"12. Now, the issue which arises for our consideration is
whether on death of the revisionist, the revision proceeding
under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC would
abate. The answer to it would depend on the nature of the
2026:KER:10685
order under challenge in the revision. If, for example, an
accused has invoked the revisional power for testing the
correctness of an order rejecting his discharge application,
on his death, the revision proceeding would abate because
the main trial would abate and, therefore, ancillary
proceeding emanating therefrom would automatically
abate. But where the main proceeding survives despite
death of the revisionist, the revision may not abate owing
to the nature of the revisional proceeding.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
17. Since strict rule of locus does not apply to a revision
proceeding, on death of a revisionist, the law of abatement
that applies to an appeal does not apply to a revision
proceeding, more particularly when revision is not at the
instance of an accused. However, where the revision is at
the instance of an accused / convict, the revisional court
may refuse to continue the proceedings on his death, inter
alia, where (a) the revisional proceeding emanates from an
order passed during trial; or (b) the revisional proceeding is
against an order of conviction, or affirmance of conviction.
In situation (a) (supra), on death of accused the trial would
abate and so would ancillary proceedings emanating
therefrom. In situation (b) (supra), the sentence or fine
cannot be executed against a dead person, therefore, in
absence of any application from a person seeking leave to
pursue the revision, the court may terminate the
proceedings as having abated. However, where the revision
is at the instance of an informant or a complainant, on his
death, the proceedings will not abate and, therefore,
2026:KER:10685
revisional court may exercise its discretion and proceed to
test the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed
by the court subordinate to it."
[underline supplied]
In view of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the
aforesaid judgment, this revision petition stands closed as abated.
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S.
JUDGE
MSA
