JUDGMENT : Heard the learned, Mr. M.J. Quadir, for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1-10. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.8.2017, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, in the Case No.C.R. 20(A)/2012. 3. The brief case that can be narrated here is that the present petitioner as a complainant lodged a case against one Abdul Hasim Laskar, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and at the conclusion of the trial, by its order dated 24.12.2013, the learned Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi held that the accused has failed to make repayment of the loan amount taken from the complainant and by holding the accused person guilty under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, convicted and sentenced him to pay the said amount of Rs.4,95,000/- (Rupees four lakh ninety five thousands) along with a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default, simple imprisonment for six months. 4. The said accused/petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions, challenging the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence and the learned Court of Sessions, Hailakandi dismissed the said appeal by its order dated 26.2.2015, in Criminal Appeal No.6/2014. Thereafter the said accused/petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision Petition before this Court being the Criminal Revision Petition No.239/2015 and during the course of pendency of the petition, both the parties arrived at a settlement and thereby the accused person in the said case agreed to pay the entire amount of Rs.4,95,000/- (Rupees four lakh ninety five thousand) along with an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand), as consideration of settlement of the dispute. The accused person took time for such payment and accordingly by its order dated 1.8.2016, in Criminal Revision Petition No.239/2015, the Court directed the said accused person to deposit the amount before the Registry on or before 18.4.2016 and in that event, the complainant was allowed to withdraw the said amount. But unfortunately the said accused person died after such direction, which was appraised to the Court on behalf of said deceased accused person that the matter has become infructuous as the said accused person expired on 25.3.2016. On such a submission, the Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed and disposed, as being infructuous. 5. But unfortunately the said accused person died after such direction, which was appraised to the Court on behalf of said deceased accused person that the matter has become infructuous as the said accused person expired on 25.3.2016. On such a submission, the Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed and disposed, as being infructuous. 5. Subsequently the complainant/petitioner herein filed a petition before the trial Court under Section 70 IPC, read with Sections 421/431 Cr.P.C., for recovery of the said amount of fine from the legal heirs of the deceased person, as agreed by the deceased prior to his death. The said petition was taken up for hearing by the Court and show cause notice was issued to the legal heirs of the said deceased person. All the legal heirs raised their objection submitting inter alia, that the said petition is not maintainable as the provision of Section 70 IPC, read with Sections 421/431 Cr.P.C., is not applicable against the legal heirs of deceased Abdul Hasim Laskar. 6. The learned trial Court by its impugned order dated 7.8.2017, in the said Case No.C.R. 20(A)/2012, has disposed the matter solely on the ground that the Hon’ble High Court by its order dated 1.8.2016, has already dismissed the petition after the death of their father. So after such dismissal of the petition by the High Court, the said trial Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter afresh (reference to the order dated 1.8.2016, Criminal Revision Petition No.239/2015 was made). 7. Assailing the aforesaid order, the complainant of the said case again came before this Court with the present petition that such a rejection on the part of the learned trial Court for realizing the fine amount from the legal heirs is bad in law and bereft of reasoning. 8. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties. 9. Assailing the aforesaid order, the complainant of the said case again came before this Court with the present petition that such a rejection on the part of the learned trial Court for realizing the fine amount from the legal heirs is bad in law and bereft of reasoning. 8. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties. 9. Relying on the decisions of the Bombay High Court in Shamim Saifuddin Sarkhot vs. Jugraj Miyachand Jain and another, dated 17.2.2016, reported in 4 OJ WP 555 of 2016.doc as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bondada Gajapathy Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (1965) 1 SCJ 465; Shankar Prasad Ghosh vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2008) 9 SCR 1163 ; Harnam Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (1975) SCCriR 177 and Suresh Kumar and others vs. Dignity Motor and others reported in (2014) ACD 824, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M.J. Quadir has made submissions that the petitioner is within the jurisdiction to file such petition invoking the provisions of Section 70 IPC, as well as Sections 421/431 Cr.P.C. It has been seriously contended that the learned trial Court is in a position to proceed for realization of the sentenced (fine) amount from the legal heirs of the deceased/accused convict, in the manner provided in the aforesaid provisions. It has also been highlighted in the said decisions that every appeal under the Chapter abated on the death of the appellant, but appeal from the sentence of fine can be maintained. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. P.K. Deka has also relied on the decisions of Savita H. Sorle and others vs. Rajesh Damidar Sarode and another reported in 2006 Cri.L.J. 2229 and Kaushalya Devi Massand vs. Roopkishore Khore reported in (2011) 4 SCC 593 and has made submission that no such criminal liability be fastened upon legal heirs of deceased accused, as has been submitted by the petitioner and hence, the respondents are not under any liability to pay the fine. 11. I have gone through the decisions so referred and relied upon by both the parties. But I refrain from discussing all those citations only because the trial Court, while taking up the petition, has not appreciated any of the said provisions, as referred into. 12. 11. I have gone through the decisions so referred and relied upon by both the parties. But I refrain from discussing all those citations only because the trial Court, while taking up the petition, has not appreciated any of the said provisions, as referred into. 12. As soon as the Court taken up a petition and take judicial notice of certain facts, then the Court is bound to pass an effective order on the same rather than to dispose of the matter in a cryptic way. It is important to note here that while moving the said petition before the Court by the petitioner, it was referred that the deceased admitted his liability to pay the amount before the Court but prior to his payment, he suddenly expired. Such an acknowledgment of liability on the part of the accused/convict, which is a pure sentence of fine, the petitioner now is in a position to recover the said as a fine amount, as has been provided under the specific provision of law, as mentioned above. 13. Now whether the Court is agreeable to such petition or not, is altogether a different situation but the Court is to give proper reasoning for dismissing or allowing the same. Only because the criminal petition was filed by the accused/petitioner challenging the order of conviction was dismissed for his death, would not itself ipso facto diminish the legal right so accrued to a party concerned. The order so passed by this Court in the earlier Criminal Revision Petition dated 1.8.2016, operates and binding to the parties and then to the legal heirs. As it reflected, the trial Court has not discussed in details all the matter, while disposing of the petition. 14. In the fitness of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court dated 7.8.2017, in the said Case No.C.R. 20(A)/2012, is without any reasoning and suffers from the irregularities, which needs interference. 14. In the fitness of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court dated 7.8.2017, in the said Case No.C.R. 20(A)/2012, is without any reasoning and suffers from the irregularities, which needs interference. Without discussing the matter on merit, the present petition stands disposed of by setting aside the aforesaid order dated 7.8.2017, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, in the Case No.C.R. 20(A)/2012, with a direction to decide the petition, filed by the present petitioner afresh by giving proper reasons and also by giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties and their legal submissions, who relied upon the aforesaid authority, as mentioned above and also any other legal point that may put in the course of hearing. 15. Both the parties are hereby directed to appear before the said Court on 28.8.2018. 16. The revision is disposed of accordingly.