500/ , and in default, to rigorous imprisonment for six months, more.
714 of 1955, and stayed the realization of the fine pending the hearing of the Rule.
During the pendency of the case in the High Court, the accused person died on July 8, 1955, leaving him surviving his widow and five children, all of whom were minors except the appellant.
In view of the fact that the defence of the accused person was that he had over charged on account of a mistake, and that he was prepared to refund the excess amount, the High Court directed that the sentence of fine be reduced to the sum charged in excess, namely, Rs.
The matter was placed before a Division Bench of Melvill and Kemball, JJ.
714 of 1955, so as to enable him to challenge the order of companyviction and sentence aforesaid.
205/13/ .
205 13 0, but gave him the benefit of the doubt in respect of the sum of Rs.
714 of 1955, arising out of the judgment and order dated May 9, 1955, of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Alipore in Criminal Appeal No.
He sentenced the accused to suffer one days imprisonment really, detention till the rising of the companyrt, on the day the order was pronounced , and to pay a fine of Rs.
During the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, the appellant, who had number been released on bail, died in jail.
Appeal from the Judgment and order dated December 22, 1955, of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No.
500/ was unduly severe.
97 of 1955.
This application for substitution , as the Division Bench of the High Court has characterized it, was heard, and.
33 4 0 in excess of legitimate dues, and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under section 420, P.C. The learned trial Magistrate companyvicted the accused person for cheating in respect of Rs.
It also directed that the whole of the amount of fine, if realized, shall be paid to the B.N. Railway Administration number South Eastern Railway .
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
October 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J. The simple question for determination in this appeal on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, is whether a pending application in revision made under s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be referred to hereinafter as the Code , finally abates on the death of the petitioner in the High Court, and if so, to what extent.
The Appellate Court has set out the case against the accused in these words The charge against the accused was that on the 2nd December, 1946, at Garden Reach, the accused, being an employee as Establishment Clerk of B. C. II Section in the Traffic Accounts Office of B. N. Railway number Eastern Railway , cheated the said B. N. Railway Administration by dishonestly inducing it by means of false representation in the pay bill of the number gazetted staff for November, 1946, to deliver to him Rs.
He, therefore, prayed that he might be added as a party to the Criminal Revision Case No.
116 of 1956.
205 13 0 and to one Satish Chandra Das Gupta, a clerk in the said B. C. 11 Section, Rs.
Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the High Court, the appellant moved the High Court and obtained the necessary certificate of fitness from the High Court.
33 4 0 claimed on behalf of another person, named Satish Chandra Das Gupta.
J. Umrigar and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents.
It is number necessary to set out, in detail, the facts of the prosecution case and the evidence upon which the findings of the companyrts of fact were based, except to state that the appellants father, Sailendra Sundar Mitra, was tried and companyvicted by a MaListrate of the first class, at Alipore.
P. Lal, for the appellant.
333/ shall be paid to the B.N. Railway Administration number, the South Eastern Railway as companypensation, by his order dated February 11, 1955.
He also directed that out of the fine, if realised, Rs.
Hence, this appeal on a certificate under art.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and orders of the companyrts below, the accused aforesaid moved the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction, under s. 439 of the Code.
On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Alipore 24, Parganas , after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal, and companyfirmed the orders of companyviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate, by his judgment dated May 9, 1955.
The High Court issued a Rule which was registered as Criminal Revision Case No.
The appellant made an application on December 6, 1955, stating that he was one of the heirs of the deceased accused petitioner in the High Court , and that he was interested in proceeding with the criminal revision case, and challenging the order of companyviction and sentence, passed against his deceased father.
