IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-962-SB-2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.04.2025 GURJANT SINGH …..APPELLANT Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB …..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Adish Jain, Advocate and Mr. Nishtha Garg, Advocate for the appellant. ******* DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Appellant-Gurjant Singh was convicted by the Court of learned Special Judge, Moga under Sec$on 7 and Sec$on 13(2) of Preven$on of Corrup$on Act, 1988 vide judgment dated 30.03.2010 in a case arising out of FIR No.40 dated 26.07.2007, registered at Police Sta$on Ferozepur under Sec$ons 7 and 13(2) of the Preven$on of Corrup$on Act, 1988. Vide a separate order of even date, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 ½ year and to pay a fine of ₹2,200/- for commi9ng the aforesaid offence besides the default sentence. 2. Against the aforesaid convic$on and sentence, the present appeal was filed by way back in 2010. The appeal was admi=ed on 10.04.2010 and the sentence was directed to remain suspended vide order dated 27.04.2010. CRM-10775-2025 3. This CRM-10775-2025 is moved by applicant-Jasbir Kaur to place on record death cer$ficate of the appellant as Annexure A-1. Applica$on is Allowed. Annexure A-1 is taken on record which would reveal that applicant-Gurjant Singh has since expired on 23.04.2016. CRM-10776-2025 and CRM-10777-2025 PRIYANKA 2025.04.23 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-962-SB-2010 (O&M) 4. Applica$on bearing CRM-10776-2025 is moved under Sec$on 5 of the Limita$on Act read with Sec$on 528 of BNSS, 2023 to condone the delay of 3214 days in filing the applica$on for leave to con$nue the appeal. CRM-10777-2025 is moved under Sec$on 435 (2) proviso read with Sec$on 528 of BNSS, 2023 for leave to con$nue the appeal. Prayer is further made by way of CRM-10778-2025 to fix the actual date of hearing. 5. Reply to the applica$on has been filed by the respondent-State, strongly opposing the applica$on to condone the huge delay of 3214 days in filing the applica$on for leave to con$nue the appeal. 6. Sec$on 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, which is applicable in the present case, reads as under:- ‘394. Abatement of appeals.—(1) Every other appeal under sec$on 377 or sec$on 378 shall finally abate on the death of the accused. (2) Every other appeal under this Chapter (except an appeal from a sentence of fine) shall finally abate on the death of the appellant: Provided that where the appeal is against a convic$on and sentence of death or of imprisonment, and the appellant dies during the pendency of the appeal, any of his near rela$ves may, within thirty days of the death of the appellant, apply to the Appellate Court for leave to con$nue the appeal; and if leave is granted, the appeal shall not abate. Explana on.—In this sec$on, “near rela$ve” means a parent, spouse, lineal descendant, brother or sister.’ 7. It is evident from the abovesaid provision that every appeal as filed under Sec$on 377 or 378 Cr.P.C shall abate on the death of the accused. Any other appeal, except an appeal from a sentence of fine, is to abate on the death of the appellant. However, the proviso provides that if appeal is against convic$on and sentence of death or of an imprisonment is imposed and the appellant dies during the pendency of the appeal, any of his near rela$ve (who includes parent, spouse, brother, sister or lineal descendant) may seek leave to con$nue the appeal, within 30 days of the death of the appellant and in case, the leave is granted, then the appeal shall not abate. Page 2 of 3 PRIYANKA 2025.04.23 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-962-SB-2010 (O&M) 8. In the present case, the applicant is the widow of deceased appellant-Gurjant Singh. Appellant had died on 23.04.2016 and the applica$on seeking leave to con$nue the appeal has been moved on 11.03.2025 with a delay of 3214 days i.e. much beyond the permi=ed period of 30 days. 9. The ground men$oned in the applica$on seeking condona$on of huge delay of 3214 days is that applicant came to know about pendency of the appeal only in January 2025, when she approached the employer of her husband for family pension, which would have become applicable to her on account of appellant’s death. 10. I am afraid that the reason for delay as given by the appellant is absolutely not jus$ciable. As the appellant had expired in April 2016, it is obvious that the applicant would have become en$tled for family pension, immediately aJer the death of the appellant. It is not believable that for a period of more than 09 years, she was not aware about the pendency of the appeal despite the fact that family pension could not have been paid to her during this long period. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any jus$ciable ground so as to condone the huge of delay of 3214 days in filing the applica$on for leave to con$nue the appeal. 12. As such, applica$on bearing CRM-10776-2025 is hereby dismissed. Consequent thereto, applica$on bearing CRM-10777-2025 seeking leave to con$nue the appeal is also dismissed. Other connected applica$on(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 13. Since the appellant has expired and leave to con$nue the appeal to the applicant-spouse of the appellant has been declined, therefore the present appeal stands disposed of having abated. 22.04.2025 Pry (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? Yes PRIYANKA 2025.04.23 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document