IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.92 of 1990 Baikuntha Nath Sahu …. Appellant None -versus- Basanta Kumar Sahoo and another …. Respondents None CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 10.07.2026 11. 1. No one represented either for the appellant or the respondents at the time of call. 2. This appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against judgment dated 11th August, 1989 of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar rendered in 1.C.C. No.65 of 1988 wherein and whereby the accused persons, namely, Basanta Kumar Sahoo and Prasanna Kumar Sahoo were found “not guilty” for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 294/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and acquitted of the charge under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”, for short) and, consequently, they were set at liberty. 2.1. Being aggrieved, assailing said judgment against acquittal, the appellant has approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Misc. Case No.802 of 1989 for grant of leave to file an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. This Court by order dated 1st February, 1990 having granted leave, this Criminal Appeal has been filed and registered. Page 2 of 3 3. This Court vide order dated 18th April, 1990 admitted this appeal and issued notice. On 20th March, 2026, when the matter stood posted for hearing, none represented either the appellant or the respondents. Hence, this Court directed to issue notice to both the appellant and the respondents. Thereafter the matter was taken up on 29th April, 2026, when this Court observed that though notices have been issued to the appellant as well as the respondents by the Registry to be served through the Office of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khordha, no one was present for the appellant as well as the respondents. Therefore, the matter was again adjourned. On 3rd July, 2026, as no one appeared, direction was issued to the Registrar (Judicial) for obtaining report from the Court concerned with regard to service of notice. 4. Pursuant to said order dated 3rd July, 2026, a report has come to be submitted by the Registry as received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khordha enclosing a copy of death certificate, depicting that the appellant, Sri Baikuntha Nath Sahu, has passed away on 9th March, 2022. 5. On perusal of record, it is found that this appeal has been filed under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. by the sole appellant (Sri Baikuntha Nath Sahu) who is dead. At this juncture, it may be pertinent to take note of provisions of Section 394 of the Cr.P.C., which is quoted hereunder: “394. Abatement of appeals.— (1) Every appeal under Section 377 or Section 378 shall finally abate on the death of the accused. (2) Every other appeal under the Chapter (except an appeal from a sentence of fine) shall finally abate on the death of the appellant: Provided that where the appeal is against a conviction and sentence of death or of imprisonment, and the appellant dies during the pendency of the appeal, any of his near relatives may, within thirty days of the death of the appellant, apply to the Appellate Court for leave to continue the appeal; and if leave is granted, the appeal shall not abate. Explanation.— In this section, “near relative” means a parent, spouse, lineal descendant, brother or sister.” 6. Having faced with such situation, in view of the aforesaid provision envisaging without ambiguity that on the death of the accused every appeal under Section 378, Cr.P.C. shall stand abated, the instant Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, abated. Consequently, the Criminal Appeal stands disposed of. (M.S. Raman) Judge Laxmikant Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER