Skip to main content

Heirs of complainant can continue the prosecution

In Chand Devi Daga and Ors. Vs. Manju K. Humatani and Ors, appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court allowing an application filed by the legal representatives of Petitioner. Chandra Narayan Das whose legal representatives are the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 had filed a complaint against the Appellants alleging offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 201 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The original complainant died during the pendency of the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition before the High Court. High Court permitted the legal representatives of Chandra Narayan Das to come on record for prosecuting the criminal miscellaneous petition.

Section 256 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is contained in Chapter XX with the heading "Trial of summons-cases by Magistrates". Analogous provision to Section 256 of CrPC was contained in Section 247 of CrPC, 1898. In Section 247, the proviso was added in 1955 saying that "where the Magistrate is of the opinion that personal attendance is not necessary, he may dispense with such attendance". The said proviso took out the rigour of the original Rule and whole thing was left to the discretion of the Court. Sub-section (1) of Section 256 of CrPC contains the above proviso in the similar manner. Thus, even in case of trial of summons-case it is not necessary or mandatory that after death of complainant the complaint is to be rejected, in exercise of the power under proviso to Section 256(1) of CrPC, the Magistrate can proceed with the complaint. 

The present is a case where offence was alleged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 201 read with 34 of IPC for which procedure for trial of summons-case was not applicable and there is no provision in Chapter XIX "Trial of warrant-cases by Magistrates" containing a provision that in the event of death of complainant the complaint is to be rejected. The Magistrate under Section 249 of CrPC has power to discharge a case where the complainant is absent. The discharge under Section 249, however, is hedged with condition "the offence may be lawfully compounded or is not a cognizable offence". Had the Code 1973 intended that in case of death of complainant in a warrant case the complaint is to be rejected, the provision would have indicated any such intention which is clearly absent. 

In this context a reference is made to judgment of this Court in Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas v. State of Maharashtra. In the said case this Court had occasion to consider the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. It was held therein that the Magistrate had the power to permit a relative to act as the complainant to continue the prosecution. In Jimmy Jahangir Madan v. Bolly Cariyappa Hindley after referring to Ashwin case it was held that, heir of the complainant can be allowed to file a petition under Section 302 of the CrPC to continue the prosecution. 

Two Judge Bench in Jimmy Jahangir Madan v. Bolly Caiyappa Hindley (dead) By L.Rs., referring to this Court's judgment in Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas had held that, heirs of complainant can continue the prosecution. High Court did not commit any error in allowing the legal heirs of the complainant to prosecute the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition before the High Court. The appeal is dismissed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more