JUDGMENT : J.K. Mohanty, J. - Petitioner, who died during the pendency of this revision, was convicted u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') for contravention of Clause 3 of the Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Order') and was sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to S.I. for two months more by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panposh. In appeal before the Sessions Judge, Sundargarh the conviction was maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to three months S.I. along with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to S.I. for two months more. 2. This case raises the question whether a criminal conviction can be revised after the death of the convicted person. Section 394, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 reads as follows: (1) Every appeal u/s 377 or Section 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 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. As regards the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court there is no provision similar to Section 394, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. There is also no provision that the revision application can be or cannot be made in respect of the order of conviction when the convicted person is dead. Mr. Biswal, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that the revisional power u/s 401 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure (which is similar to Section 439 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure) can be exercised by the High Court even after the death of the Petitioner. He cited a decision reported in Pranab Kumar Mitra Vs. Mr. Biswal, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that the revisional power u/s 401 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure (which is similar to Section 439 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure) can be exercised by the High Court even after the death of the Petitioner. He cited a decision reported in Pranab Kumar Mitra Vs. The State of West Bengal and Another which was a case u/s 439 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein it has been held: Section 431, Code of Criminal Procedure in terms applies only to appeals and not to revision applications. In the absence of statutory provisions, in terms applying to an application in revision, as there are those in Section 431 in respect of criminal appeals, the High Court has the power to pass such orders as to it may seem fit and proper, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction vested in it by Section 439 of the Code. Indeed, it is a discretionary power which has to be exercised in aid of justice. Whether or not the High Court will exercise its revisional jurisdiction in a given case, must depend upon the facts and circumstances of that case. The revisional powers of the High Court vested in it by Section 439 of the Code, read with Section 435, do not create any right in the litigant, but only conserve the power of the High Court to see that justice is done in accordance with the recognised rules of criminal jurisprudence, and that subordinate criminal Courts do not exceed their jurisdiction, or abuse their powers vested in them by the Code. The High Court is not bound to entertain an application in revision or having entertained one, to order substitution in every case. It is not bound the other way, namely, to treat a pending application in revision as having abated by reason of the fact that there was a composite sentence of imprisonment and fine. The High Court has been left complete discretion to deal with a pending matter on the death of the Petitioner in accordance with the requirements of justice. It is not bound the other way, namely, to treat a pending application in revision as having abated by reason of the fact that there was a composite sentence of imprisonment and fine. The High Court has been left complete discretion to deal with a pending matter on the death of the Petitioner in accordance with the requirements of justice. The Petitioner in the High Court may have been an accused person who has been convicted and sentenced, or he may have been a complainant who may have been directed u/s 250 of the Code to pay compensation, to an accused person upon his discharge or acquittal. Whether it was an accused person or it was a complainant who has moved the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction, if the High Court has issued a Rule, that Rule has to be heard and determined in accordance with law, whether or not the Petitioner in the High Court is alive or dead, or whether he is represented in Court by a legal Petitioner. In hearing and determining cases u/s 439 of the Code, the High Court discharges its statutory function of supervising the administration of justice on the criminal side. Hence, the considerations applying to abatement of an appeal, may not apply to the case of revisional a applications. Where the High Court thinks it fit and proper to entertain an application in revision or calls for the record suo motu then notwithstanding the death of the convicted person pending the revision it has the power to examine the whole question of the correctness, propriety or legality of the sentence of fine, which necessarily involves examining the order of conviction itself from that point of view. This view has also been endorsed by the Supreme Court in a case reported in The State of Kerala Vs. Narayani Amma Kamala Devi, wherein it has been held: The Code of Criminal Procedure gives a right of appeal to the convicted person in certain cases. If, after the conviction and before an appeal has been filed the convicted person dies, there is no provision for any appeal on his behalf. What will happen when after an appeal has been held by the convicted person he dies, is provided for in Section 431. If, after the conviction and before an appeal has been filed the convicted person dies, there is no provision for any appeal on his behalf. What will happen when after an appeal has been held by the convicted person he dies, is provided for in Section 431. That section provides that every appeal against acquittal and every other appeal under Chapter XXXI, except an appeal from a sentence of fine shall finally a bate on the death of the Appellant. The High Court or the Court of Sessions, cannot therefore exercise its appellate jurisdiction in favour of a dead person even if an appeal has been filed by him, except in an appeal from a sentence of fine. As regards the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court there is no provision similar to Section 431. Nor is there any provision whether a revisional application can be or cannot be made in respect of an order of conviction when the convicted person is dead. There is the important distinction that while the appellate jurisdiction can be exercised only after an appeal is filed by the convicted person-or against an order of acquittal u/s 411 or Section 417, there is no such limitation on the Court's revisional jurisdiction. The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court by being moved either by the convicted person himself or by any other person or suo motu, on the basis of its own knowledge derived from any source whatsoever without being moved by any person at all. The conditions for the exercise of the power of revision are laid down in the opening clauses of Section 439 while the next clause that the High Court may exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of appeal u/s 423, Section 426, Section 427 and Section 428 define the extent of the power. This does not affect the position that while the condition for the exercise of the powers of Courts of appeal is that an appeal must be preferred by the convicted person, that condition is conspicuous by its absence where the conditions of the exercise of the powers of revision are laid down, in Section 439. This does not affect the position that while the condition for the exercise of the powers of Courts of appeal is that an appeal must be preferred by the convicted person, that condition is conspicuous by its absence where the conditions of the exercise of the powers of revision are laid down, in Section 439. So from the above decisions it is clear that where the High Court thinks it fit and proper to entertain an application in revision or calls for the record suo motu then notwithstanding the death of the convicted person pending the revision it has the power to examine the whole question of the correctness of the order of conviction. In view of the above position, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was permitted to challenge the legality of the conviction and sentence. 3. In this case the allegation against the accused was that on 2-6-1976 the Civil Supplies Inspectors, P.Ws. 1 & 3 the A.C.S. a (P.W. 2), and the Anti-Smuggling Guard (P.W. 4) inspected the shop of the accused-Petitioner and found that the accused had stored Gram, Mung Dal, Gram Dal. Salt, Tata cocoaunt Oil tim, K.M.P. Oil etc. which were essential commodities. They further found that in the declaration board the stock positions of those articles were not mentioned. They further found that the accused had contravened the provisions of Clause 3 the Order and hence liable u/s 7 of the Act. They seized the articles under. Ext. 1 and kept the same in zima. The accused was tried in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Panposh who convicted and sentenced the Petitioner as stated earlier. 4. In this Court Mr. Biswal for the Petitioner relying on two decisions of this Court reported in Basanta Kumar Pal v. State of Orissa 53 (1980) C.L.T. 29 (Notes 47), Ramanath Das v. State of Orissa 1981 C.L.R. 80 submitted that at the time when the shop was opening the check was made by the civil supplies staff and the accused had no time to make necessary entries in the Board. But the accused has taken the plea that there was a small Board in addition to a bigger Board where the stock positions of the articles of the essential commodities were mentioned. But this plea appears to be an afterthought and the accused-Petitioner has also not led any evidence in support of this plea. But the accused has taken the plea that there was a small Board in addition to a bigger Board where the stock positions of the articles of the essential commodities were mentioned. But this plea appears to be an afterthought and the accused-Petitioner has also not led any evidence in support of this plea. The learned Courts below after careful consideration of the evidence on record found the Petitioner guilty u/s 7 of the Act. After considering the argument of both sides, the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, I also see no reason to differ from the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. 5. In the result, therefore, the revision has no merit which is accordingly dismissed. However, Mr. Biswal submitted that the sale proceeds of the articles seized have been deposited in the Government Treasury and the same may be returned. Considering the facts and circumstances and the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I direct that the sale proceeds of the seized articles deposited in the Government Treasury, if any, may be returned to the legal representative of the accused-Petitioner. Final Result : Dismissed