The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that criminal proceedings do not abate merely because the complainant has died and legal representatives are untraceable. Observing that the “cost of liberty must be proportionate”, the court ruled that a person cannot be kept “in the clutches of the criminal system” once compensation in a private monetary dispute has been fully paid.
Justice Anoop Chitkara made the observations while hearing a criminal revision petition filed by a convict challenging his conviction and sentence in a cheque-bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The conviction recorded by the trial court had already been upheld by the sessions court.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel informed the court that the entire compensation amount awarded by the trial court had been deposited and that the petitioner was seeking only a reduction of sentence to the period already undergone. It was also submitted that the complainant had died and the whereabouts of the legal representatives were unknown.
Recording the submission, Justice Chitkara observed that the petitioner was no longer challenging the conviction on merits and that the court was not required to examine its correctness.
Examining the effect of the complainant’s death during revision proceedings, the court referred to Section 279 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and held that while summons cases may result in acquittal upon the complainant’s death at the trial stage, the provision does not apply after conviction and affirmation by the appellate court.
“So, what happens when a complainant-respondent dies during the appellate or revision stage, and their legal representatives cannot be traced? Does the adversarial system get defeated for want of an adversary? The answer is No,” Justice Chitkara observed.
The Bench said: “What the Constitution embodies is not a method of adjudication, but a standard of adjudication — a fair procedure, a fair hearing, an impartial and independent adjudicator and a reasoned decision.”
‘Cheque dishonour disputes compensatory in nature’
Observing that cheque dishonour disputes are essentially private and compensatory in nature, the court said: “Once the person has paid the compensation in full, that does not warrant keeping the person in the clutches of the criminal system.”
On proportionality in sentencing, Justice Chitkara observed: “The seeds of proportionate sentencing have now sprouted, and the green shoots are visible across jurisdictions.” The court further asked: “How many ounces of flesh does a convict have to pay every day for the inability to pay the money?”
Partly allowing the petition, the court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. It directed that the deposited compensation be kept in a fixed deposit until legal heirs claim it, failing which it may later be transferred to the Legal Services Authority after due process.
