Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, G Varadaraju, an 89-year-old individual appearing in person, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. The petition sought a declaration that Section 394(1) read with Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is unconstitutional for want of differentiating between the death of an accused before and after acquittal, taking into consideration Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). The petitioner argued that the legal heir of a deceased acquitted accused in a cheque bounce case was receiving around two lakh rupees per month from the property of the deceased, which defeated the object of the NI Act. The respondents were the Union of India (through the Ministry of Law and Justice and Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs) and the Principal Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Affairs & Registration, Karnataka. The court, presided over by Justice Krishna S. Dixit, dismissed the petition on 12 August 2022, holding that the challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions was without merit. The court did not elaborate on the reasoning but summarily rejected the petition.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Criminal Procedure - Section 394(1) CrPC - Death of Accused - Acquittal - The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 394(1) read with Section 378(4) CrPC for not distinguishing between death of accused before and after acquittal, arguing that legal heirs of a deceased acquitted accused in NI Act cases unjustly retain benefits. The court held that the provision is not unconstitutional and dismissed the petition as lacking merit. (Paras 1-2) B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Sections 138, 139 - Object of Act - The petitioner contended that the object of the NI Act is defeated if legal heirs of a deceased acquitted accused retain benefits. The court did not find any constitutional infirmity and dismissed the petition. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 394(1) read with Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is unconstitutional for not differentiating between the death of an accused before and after acquittal, particularly in cases under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed.
Law Points
- Constitutional validity of Section 394(1) CrPC
- Distinction between acquittal before and after death of accused
- Object of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Right of legal heirs to retain benefits of acquittal
