Pranab Kumar Mitra v. The State of West Bengal and Another

Case Analysis

Pranab Kumar Mitra v. The State of West Bengal and Another

June 4, 2025

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 read with Sections 435 and 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC, 1898). The central question was whether a criminal revision pending in the High Court abates on the death of the petitioner and, if not, to what extent the legal representative can prosecute the revision. The High Court had limited its jurisdiction based on Section 431, ruling that only the sentence of fine could be challenged post the death of the accused. The Supreme Court overruled this approach, affirming that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 439 remains intact and permits full examination of the conviction’s legality, even after the accused’s death. The Court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction serves a supervisory function to ensure justice and prevent miscarriages of justice. This judgment underscores the independent scope of revisional powers distinct from appellate jurisdiction.

Keywords: Revisional Jurisdiction, CrPC Section 439, Abatement of Revision, Legal Representative, Conviction, Fine, Supervisory Jurisdiction.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title
Pranab Kumar Mitra v. The State of West Bengal and Another

ii) Case Number
Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 1956

iii) Judgement Date
October 3, 1958

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
S. R. Das (Chief Justice), Bhagwati, B. P. Sinha, Subba Rao, and K. N. Wanchoo, JJ.

vi) Author
Justice B. P. Sinha

vii) Citation
[1959] Supp. SCR 63

viii) Legal Provisions Involved
Sections 431, 435, 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any)
The High Court’s decision limiting revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 based on Section 431 was set aside.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Criminal Law, Procedural Law, Jurisprudence, Supervisory Jurisdiction

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arose from a criminal revision petition filed by the father of the appellant, Sailendra Sundar Mitra. He was convicted under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for cheating the Bengal Nagpur Railway (B.N. Railway) by submitting false pay bills, inducing wrongful disbursement of salaries to himself and another employee. Upon conviction, he was sentenced to one day’s imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 with six months rigorous imprisonment in default of payment.

After his appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge at Alipore, Sailendra Mitra approached the Calcutta High Court under Section 439 of CrPC. During the pendency of the revision, he passed away, and his son, the present appellant, sought substitution to continue the revision, challenging both conviction and sentence. The High Court allowed substitution but limited the scope of revision to the sentence of fine, excluding examination of the conviction itself, relying on Section 431 of CrPC.

The Supreme Court examined the correctness of this limitation and whether revisional jurisdiction abates or restricts upon the death of the convicted person.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant’s father, Sailendra Sundar Mitra, employed as an Establishment Clerk at B.N. Railway, prepared false pay bills on December 2, 1946. By this, he induced wrongful payments to himself amounting to Rs. 205-13-0 and to another employee, Satish Chandra Das Gupta, amounting to Rs. 33-4-0.

The Trial Magistrate convicted him only for the amount of Rs. 205-13-0, sentencing him to one day’s imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 500, with six months’ rigorous imprisonment in default. He also ordered part of the fine, if realized, to be paid as compensation to the Railway Administration.

On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge upheld both conviction and sentence. Sailendra Mitra filed a revision under Section 439 CrPC before the Calcutta High Court. During pendency, he died on July 8, 1955. His son applied for substitution under the principle of Section 431 CrPC.

The High Court allowed substitution but held that it could only address the sentence of fine, not the conviction. The fine was reduced to Rs. 205-13-0, and the remainder remitted. Dissatisfied, the legal representative obtained a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution and appealed to the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether criminal revision under Section 439 CrPC abates on the death of the petitioner.

ii) Whether the legal representative can challenge both conviction and sentence under revisional jurisdiction.

iii) Whether revisional powers under Section 439 CrPC can be limited analogously by Section 431 CrPC.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

The appellant argued that Section 431 CrPC, dealing with abatement on death, applies only to appeals. They contended that no corresponding provision governs revisions under Section 439 CrPC. Therefore, revisional jurisdiction survives the death of the petitioner.

They emphasized that the revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and discretionary, unlike statutory appellate rights, which automatically abate unless saved by specific provisions.

They cited Imperatrix v. Dongaji Andaji, (1878) ILR 2 Bom 564 where the Bombay High Court recognized that even after death, revisional jurisdiction survives since it serves justice and protects estates affected by fines.

The counsel argued that limiting revisional jurisdiction only to the sentence of fine defeats justice as conviction must also be examined to ascertain legality, especially when property rights of legal representatives remain affected.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

The respondents contended that the High Court correctly relied on the principle of Section 431 CrPC to limit the revisional scope after the petitioner’s death. They argued that since the sentence was composite — both imprisonment and fine — only the fine survived.

They emphasized that revisional jurisdiction cannot exceed statutory appellate jurisdiction, particularly posthumously, to disturb final convictions.

They referred to In re Nabishah (1894) ILR 19 Bom 714, where it was held that appeals abated upon death even in cases involving both imprisonment and fine.

They urged the Court to maintain judicial consistency by following the High Court’s interpretation, limiting posthumous revisions only to the portion affecting the estate, i.e., the fine.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i)
Section 439 CrPC, 1898: Revisional powers of High Court to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of findings, sentences, or orders passed by inferior courts.
Section 435 CrPC, 1898: Empowers the High Court to call for records from subordinate courts for examination.
Section 431 CrPC, 1898: Provides for abatement of criminal appeals on the death of appellants but excludes appeals from fines.
Section 420 IPC: Offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
Article 134(1)(c) Constitution of India: Grants Supreme Court jurisdiction on certification of fitness by the High Court.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i)
The Supreme Court ruled that revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC does not abate automatically upon the death of the petitioner. The High Court retains full discretionary powers to examine the legality and propriety of convictions and sentences in pending revisions.

The Court distinguished between appellate rights (which are statutory) and revisional powers (which are supervisory and discretionary). Unlike appeals, revisions serve the broader interest of justice and judicial oversight, not merely private redress.

The Court clarified that Section 431 CrPC explicitly applies only to appeals, and its principles cannot be mechanically imported into revisional proceedings. Revisional jurisdiction, unlike appeal, does not create enforceable private rights but ensures legal propriety and jurisdictional compliance.

The Court approved the reasoning in Imperatrix v. Dongaji Andaji (1878) ILR 2 Bom 564 over In re Nabishah (1894) ILR 19 Bom 714, emphasizing that High Courts retain supervisory jurisdiction even posthumously, especially where fines impact deceased convicts’ estates.

Thus, where fines affect the property of deceased convicts and their legal representatives, full revisional scrutiny including the legality of conviction becomes necessary.

b. OBITER DICTA

i)
The Court observed that had the legislature intended for revisions to abate like appeals, it would have expressly provided so. The absence of such provision indicates the legislature’s intent to preserve revisional jurisdiction for justice’s sake.

The Court remarked that discretionary revisional powers exist to prevent injustice and miscarriage of justice by inferior courts, independent of the convict’s death.

c. GUIDELINES

Revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC survives even after the death of the petitioner.
High Court retains full authority to examine legality, correctness, and propriety of convictions and sentences.
No mechanical application of Section 431 CrPC principles to revisions.
Legal representatives can continue revisions to protect estates affected by fines.
Supervisory revisional powers serve public interest beyond private grievance redressal.

Popular Keywords

Categories

Case Analysis