LexTHE STATE OF KERALA versus NARAYANI AMMA KAMALA DEVI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- 3 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 943 some assistance in interpreting the word "mine" under section 2(a)(i). 1962 Serajuddin &:: Co •. •• T!ieir Workmen We must, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the reference by the State Govemment of West Bengal in the present case was valid. The appeal accord- ingly fails and is dismissed with costs, Gajtndragodk11r J. Appeal dismissed. THE STATE OF KERALA v. NARAYAN! AMMA KAMALA DEVI (J. L. KAPUR·, K. C. DAs GUPTA and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Criminal Trial-Conviction-Death of ·accused-Revision ta High Court, after the death of the accused if maintainable- Appellate and Revisianal jurisdiction-Distinction between- Cade of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), ss. 481, 439. One N, a cashier of a bank, was convicted of an · offence under s. 381 of the Indian Penal Code on a charge of theft of a certain amount belonging to the Bank and was convicted to one year's rigorous imprisonment. His appeal to the Sessions Court was unsuccessful. On that very date within few hours after the pronouncement of the judgment by the Sessions Court he died. A revision petition was filed in the High Court by his wife and his fwo minor sons under s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court of Kerala set aside the conviction of the deceased accused. The State of Kerala came up in an appeal to the Supreme Court by a certificate granted by the High Court. The question is whether an application for revision under s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be entertained by the High Court after the death of the accused person against whom the order was made. Held, that in a proper case the High Court can exercise its power of revision of an order made against an accused person even after hi• death, and the High C@urt was right in 1962 March 19. !)44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP. l:MZ holding that the application for re.vision could be entertained under s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The State of Ktraia •· Held, with regard to the revisional jurisdiction of the Nara;·a11i Ammti High Court there is no prc)\·ision siniilar to s. 431 of the Co<lc, J;amala Drri i·or is there any provision \\·h~thcr a rc\·isional application ra11 Ue or l:annot be made in.respect of an order of conviction when the convicted person is dead. The opening words of s. 4:J9 of the Code, produce the result that revisional jurisdiction can be C)\ercised by the High Court by being moved either by the convicted person himself or by any other person or sue u1otu, on the basis of its own knowledge derived from any source whatsoever without being moved by any person at all. All that is necessary to bring the High Court's powers of revision into operation is such inforn1ation a:-> n1akes the High Court think that an order made by a Subordinate Court is fit for the exercise of its po\vers of revision. DosJ. 1,hc important <lictinction bct\\'Ccn ss. 1-31 and 439 is that while the appellate jurisdictio11 can be exercised only after an appeal is filed by the convicted person or against an order of acquittal under ss. 41 I or 417, there is no such limita· tion on the court's revisional jurisdiction. Impcratrix v. Dongaji Andaji, (1878) I.L.R. llom. 564 referred to. l'ranab Kumar Mitra v .. State of .lresl Bengal, (1959) Supp. 1 S.C.R. 63, relied on. Cu.u.!INAL APPELLATE Jumsn1cTrn~ : Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1961. Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 5, 1960, of the Kerala High Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. :rn7 of 1959. G. S. Pathak and V. A. Seyid Muhammad, for tho appellant. C. K. Siva.sankara Panickar, R. Malu:ilingier and M. R. K. Pillai, for the respondents. 1962. l'vlaroh 19. The Judgment of tho Court WWI delivered by DAS GUl'TA, J .-Can an application for revi- sion under e.439 of the Criminal Procedure Code be entertained by the High Court after the death of 3 s.c.n. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 945 the accused person agajnst whom the order was made ? That is the important question raised in this appeal. Gobindankutty Nair, a Cashier of the Trivandrum Branch of the State Bank of India was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tri- vandrum, of an offence under section 381 0£ the Indian Penal Code on a charge of theft of an amount of Bs. 10,000/- belonging to the Bank. A Fiat Car which has been purchased by the' accused was seized by the pol
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.