Durga Dutt Pardhan vs Kanshi Ram

K.P.S. Sandhu, J. (Oral)

This is a revision filed by Durga Dutt Pardhan against the order of Shri A.P. Chaudhary, Sessions Judge, Narnaul, dated 2nd March, 1984.

The facts which gave rise to this revision are as follows. Proceedings under section 107 read with section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against on Hanuman Parshad in the year 1981. Kanshi Ram respondent stood surety for the appearance of Hanuman Parshad in the sum of five thousand rupees and in the surety bond the respondent declared that he owned land worth Rs. 15,000/ and a buffalo worth Rs. 4000. Hanuman Parshad failed to appear in the proceedings under section 107 read with section 151 of the Code of Criminal procedure and the surety bond of the respondent was forfeited. The matter was referred to the Tehsildar, Narnaul, for the verification of the property of the respondent. As per the report of the Tehsildar, the respondent owned fifteen marlas of land and a cow and a calf of the value of Rs. 1,000/ The father of the present petitioner Durga Dutt Pardhan who was a party to the proceedings under section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Hanuman Parshad filed an application dated 7th January 1982, before the SubDivisional Magistrate praying therein that since the respondent had made wrong averments in the surety bond and had thus committed an offence under sections 191 and 195 of the Indian Penal Code he should be proceeded against under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the SubDivisional Magistrate declined his request vide his order dated 23rd October, 1982 Aggrieved by the order of the SubDivisional Magistrate, Maha Ram father of Durga Dutt Pardhan filed an appeal in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Narnaul. When the appeal came up for final hearing before the learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul, it was disclosed that earlier to that the appellant had expired. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon an Allahabad High Court authority in Hafiz Nehal Ahmad v. Ramji Dass AIR 1925 Allahabad 620, held that on the death of the appellant the appeal had abated. Consequently he dismissed the appeal as having abated. The son of Maha Ram, Durga Dutt petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge has come up in revision in this Court.

Mr. D.N. Tanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended in the foremost that an appeal under section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not abate on the death of the appellant. To support his contention he is placed reliance on Shrimati Shashi Rout Sarangi v. Gopabandhu, 1983 Cr. L.J. NOC 189 (Orissa). This authority deals with appeals under Chapter XXIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure and does not deal with appeals under section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I think the learned Sessions Judge has rightly relied upon the Allahabad authority referred to above which is on all fours with the facts of the case in hand. Resultantly, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and dismiss the same.