( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order of the Munsiff-Magistrate, hangal and raises a short but important question of law. One Bhimaji shreepad Tatti filed a complaint under S. 500 IPC, against Krishnaji Hanumanth kamadolli, and the offence was said to be relating to a certain question put to the complainant during the course of a Civil Proceeding. Since bheemaji Shreepad Tatti was the person aggrieved, he filed the complaint under S. 500 IPC. But subsequent to the filing of the complaint, he died. Thereafter, his son Laxman Bhimaji Tatti filed the application before the learned Magistrate that he would pursue the complaint and 'the learned magistrate allowed that application. The contention on behalf of the accused was that the offence vis-a-vis Bhimaji Sreepad Tatti was a personal one and therefore no longer survived after his death. In short, the argument was that the son of the original complainant could not proceed with the prosecution.

( 2 ) THE learned Magistrate referred to a decision in 17. Tin Maung v. The King AIR. 1941 Rang. 202. and held that the discretion was with the Magistrate to continue with the complaint for which the procedure of a Warrant case was p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document