If Accused Dies During Pendency Of Appeal & Fine Imposed Is Stayed Or Deposited Before Death, Appeal Will Abate: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that if an appellant dies during the pendency of the appeal and the fine imposed on him by the trial court has been stayed or if the entire fine amount has been deposited with the Court before death, then the appeal will be abated.

The Court observed, "A criminal appeal filed by a convict shall abate if the payment of the fine has been stayed by a judicial order before death or if the entire fine amount has been deposited with the Court. However, if the fine is neither stayed nor deposited, the appeal shall not abate. When there is no representation for the appellant, the appeal will be dismissed for lack of prosecution."

These observations were made while hearing two appeals wherein the payment of the fines was stayed and during the pendency of the plea, the appellants passed away.

The Court considered the question, "whether the appeals would abate due to the appellants' death, considering that neither their close relatives sought permission for substitution under Section 394(2) CrPC, nor did the appellants deposit the fine amount."

After examining the submissions, the Court noted that Section 435 BNSS, 2023 (Abatement of appeals) is analogous to 394 CrPC, 1973.

The bench referred to a catena of Supreme Court judgements and noted that "when a fine is levied upon a conviction, the State's right to recover it is strictly limited to execution against the deceased's estate, ensuring that penal sanctions remain personal and do not extend beyond the life of the offender."

It pointed out that complexities arose where the fine's execution had been stayed by judicial order prior to the appellant's demise. In such cases, the stay continues to operate posthumously, as it cannot be vacated, revoked, or enforced against a deceased individual who can no longer contest or comply with the order.

The Court observed that "A distinct scenario emerges when the convict, during their lifetime, has voluntarily deposited the fine with the State treasury or the Court. Here, the principle of irrevocable consent applies—once the fine has been remitted, it constitutes a legally concluded transaction, precluding legal heirs from challenging the payment or seeking restitution."

It came to the conclusion that if a convict who has deposited the fine dies during the pendency of their appeal, the deposited amount automatically vests with the State as a valid recovery, and legal representatives have no claim over it unless they seek and obtain leave of the Court to continue the appeal.

Moreover, since the fine has already been transferred to the State, no further judicial orders, whether in appeal or attachment, are required for its final appropriation, as such a transfer is merely an administrative reallocation within governmental accounts, it added.

"Given that neither the vesting nor the utilization of the fine imposes any legal burden on the heirs, and they lack locus standi to challenge its disposition absent a pending appeal, the appeal must necessarily abate upon the appellant's death. This approach upholds the fundamental principle that criminal liability is strictly personal, ensures procedural finality, and prevents unnecessary judicial intervention in matters where the penal consequence has either been satisfied or rendered unenforceable by operation of law," said the bench.

Legal Challenge Arises When Convict Passes Away Without Depositing Fine Or Securing Stay

The judge said that the legal challenge arises in cases where a convicted individual, upon whom a fine has been imposed, passes away without having either deposited the amount or securing a stay on its payment. 

"Neither statute prescribes a mechanism enabling the Court to issue notice to the legal representatives of the deceased for the purpose of fine recovery. The apparent legislative omission of such a provision likely stems from a recognition of the practical and jurisprudential concerns associated with directly notifying legal heirs regarding the pecuniary liabilities of the deceased," added the Court.

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.

The Court said that the concern is particularly pronounced where the heirs are financially well-established, domiciled abroad, or otherwise in a position to discharge the fine from their self-acquired assets as a matter of expediency.

"Such an outcome would neither align with the underlying legislative intent nor find support within the broader framework of criminal jurisprudence, which generally seeks to limit penal consequences to the individual wrongdoer rather than impose vicarious liability on their successors," it added.

The Court opined that the absence of a statutory mandate for notifying legal heirs thereby upholds the principle that criminal penalties, barring those explicitly permitted by law to survive, should not extend beyond the life of the convict or an accused.

In the present case, considering that during the lifetime of the appellant, the Court had stayed the payment of the fine, it held that all the appeals shall stand abated.

Mr. Deepanshu Kapur, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate for the appellant in CRA-S-1747-SB-2005.

Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, D.A.G., Haryana and Ms. Trishanjali Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab and Mr. Sukhdev Singh, A.A.G, Punjab.

Mr. Manish Bansal, P.P., U.T., Chandigarh along with Mr. Rajiv Vij, APP for U.T., Chandigarh

Title: Bhola @ Ram Dass v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 79

Click here to read/download the order