Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a set of two appeals, during the pendency of which, the appellants (‘convicts’) expired, a Single Judge Bench of Anoop Chitkara, J., dismissed the appeals as abated holding that in such cases where the Court had stayed the payment of fine upon conviction and the legal heirs did not seek permission for continuing the appeal or substitution under Section 394(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), the appeals could not continue.
Background
The convicts filed these appeals to challenge their convictions and sentences. Through separate orders, the appeals were admitted, the sentences were suspended, and the payment of the fines was stayed. However, the convicts expired before the appeals came up for final hearing.
Issue
Whether the appeals would abate due to the convicts’ death, considering that neither their close relatives sought permission for substitution under Section 394(2)1 of the CrPC, nor did the convicts deposit the fine amount.
Analysis
Regarding the lack of legal representatives for the convicts, the Court noted that in the present case, the issue was that the convicts’ demise would have rendered the power of attorney legally inoperative and invalid, as a fundamental principle of law was that only a living person possessed the capacity to confer authority upon another to act on their behalf. Thus, upon the demise of an individual, if the legal heirs or representatives failed to substitute them within the prescribed timeframe, the question arose as to whether the Court should appoint a legal aid counsel to represent the deceased.
The Court remarked that the unequivocal answer was in the negative, as dictated by the well-established Latin maxim ‘Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona’, which asserted that a personal cause of action extinguished with the person. However, this principle was not absolute as certain legal claims, particularly those concerning proprietary interests or liabilities against the deceased’s estate, remained unaffected and were enforceable posthumously.
The Court stated that under CrPC or Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), all pending appeals, except those challenging a sentence of a fine, abated upon the convicts’ death. However, in cases where a conviction was recorded, certain close relatives might seek leave of the Court to continue the appeal, thereby safeguarding the posthumous legal interests and reputational considerations of the deceased.
Stating that the State’s right to recover a fine levied upon conviction was strictly limited to execution against the deceased’s estate, the Court remarked that complexities arose where the fine’s execution was stayed by judicial order before the convicts’ demise. The Court said that in such cases, the stay would continue to operate posthumously, as it could not be vacated, revoked, or enforced against a deceased individual who could no longer contest or comply with the order.
The Court further explained that a distinct scenario emerged when the convict, during their lifetime, voluntarily deposited the fine with the State treasury or the Court. Here, the principle of irrevocable consent applied since once the fine had been remitted, it constituted a legally concluded transaction, precluding legal heirs from challenging the payment or seeking restitution. Thus, if a convict who had deposited the fine, died during the pendency of their appeal, the deposited amount automatically vests with the State as a valid recovery, and legal representatives had no claim over it unless they sought and obtained leave of the Court to continue the appeal.
Given that neither the vesting nor the utilization of the fine imposed any legal burden on the heirs, and they lacked locus standi to challenge its disposition, the appeal must necessarily abate upon the convicts’ death. This approach upheld the fundamental principle that criminal liability was strictly personal, ensured procedural finality, and prevented unnecessary judicial intervention in matters where the penal consequence had either been satisfied or rendered unenforceable by the operation of law.
The Court stated that the legal challenge arose in cases where a convicted individual, upon whom a fine was imposed, passed away without having either deposited the amount or secured a stay on its payment. Under both CrPC and BNSS, the recovery of such fines was procedurally limited to execution against the deceased’s estate according to established legal principles governing such liability. However, they did not prescribe a mechanism enabling the Court to issue notice to the legal representatives of the deceased for fine recovery.
The Court remarked that the apparent legislative omission of such a provision likely stemmed from a recognition of the practical and jurisprudential concerns associated with directly notifying legal heirs regarding the pecuniary liabilities of the deceased. The issuance of a formal Court notice demanding payment could, in many instances, not only diminish the deceased’s posthumous dignity in the eyes of their successors but also create unintended financial burdens. Such an outcome would neither align with the underlying legislative intent nor find support within the broader framework of criminal jurisprudence, which generally sought to limit penal consequences to the individual wrongdoer rather than impose vicarious liability on their successors.
Thus, the Court held that a criminal appeal would abate if the payment of the fine was stayed by a judicial order before death or if the entire fine amount was deposited with the Court. However, if the fine was neither stayed nor deposited, the appeal shall not abate.
Hence, in the present case, since there was no representation on behalf of the convicts, the appeals would be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Additionally, since the Court had stayed the payment of the fine before the death of the convicts, the appeals would stand abated.
Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed as abated, and the bail bonds were discharged.
[Bhola v. State of Haryana, CRA-S-77-SB-1999 and CRA-S-1747-SB-2005, decided on 30-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the appellants: Deepanshu Kapur and S.S. Rana
For the respondent: DAG Aashish Bishnoi, DAG Trishanjali Sharma, DAG Jasjit Singh, AAG Sukhdev Singh, PP Manish Bansal, and APP Rajiv Vij
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
1. Section 435 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023