JUDGMENT P.K Lohra, J. - In all these revision petitions, complainant has craved for enhancement of compensation and sentence awarded to the accused-respondent. 2. At the threshold, while adjudicating complaint of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), Pali (for short, 'learned trial Court'), handed down sentence of six months simple imprisonment to the accused-respondent with fine/compensation of different denominations and in default of payment simple imprisonment of certain durations in all these cases. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court, when petitioner preferred appeals, the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pali (for short, 'learned appellate Court') maintained the substantive sentence but enhanced amount of fine/compensation in each appeal commensurating with the cheque amount and increased default sentence of simple imprisonment in all the appeals. 4. After admission of all these revision petitions and issuance of notice, accused-respondent died on 02.03.2018. In such circumstances, petitioner has preferred application in each revision petition to bring legal heirs of accused respondent on record. Though legal provision is not quoted in the applications but undoubtedly Section 394 Cr.P.C. is not attracted under these circumstances. Be that as it may, treating all these applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C., Court has made endeavour to examine the afflictions of the petitioner. 5. There remains no quarrel that a criminal revision petition cannot be rejected as abated on account of death of revisionist, whether complainant or accused. However, in the event of death of accused respondent, in my opinion, proceedings cannot be continued against his legal heirs for enhancement of substantive sentence. For any offence committed by an accused, his legal heirs cannot be subjected to substantive sentence being contrary to basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence. 6. As regards punishment of fine, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that revision petitions would survive even after death of accused respondent. Learned counsel has placed reliance on following decision of Kerala High Court: T.S. Viswanathan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr., (2006 Cri.LJ.3865). 7. I have perused the judgment referred to supra. Upon examining all these matters, in my view, learned appellate Court has exercised its discretion appropriately in reasonably enhancing the amount of fine/compensation, which requires no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction at the behest of petitioner. 8. State of Kerala & Anr., (2006 Cri.LJ.3865). 7. I have perused the judgment referred to supra. Upon examining all these matters, in my view, learned appellate Court has exercised its discretion appropriately in reasonably enhancing the amount of fine/compensation, which requires no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction at the behest of petitioner. 8. While refraining to make any comment on ratio decidendi of judgment T.S. Viswanathan (supra), I feel satisfied that allowing applications laid by the petitioner complainant would be a futile exercise and harrasive for the legal heirs of deceased accused/respondent. Therefore, all the applications laid by the petitioner are rejected. The rejection of applications also entail rejection of all the revision petitions. Let copy of this order be placed in each file.