The main legal point established in the judgment is that the death of the complainant does not necessarily terminate the proceedings, and a fit and proper person can be substituted to prosecute the case, based on the interpretation of S.198 Cr. PC. and relevant precedents.

1. The simple question that falls to be decided in this Criminal Revision Petition is whether a private complaint instituted for an offence under S.500 IPC. can be prosecuted by the brother of the complainant even after his death.

2. The late Mathai Manjooran, who was the Labour Minister, Government of Kerala, instituted the complaint on 22 31968 for an offence under S.500 IPC. against the 1st accused (the petitioner herein), the President of the Indian National Trade Union Congress and the 2nd accused, the Printer and Publisher of a Malayalam daily newspaper 'Mathrubhumi', which is published simultaneously at Kozhikode and Ernakulam. Minister Manjooran assumed office as Labour Minister on 6 31967 when the United Front which consisted of 7 political parties formed the Government in Kerala, Minister Manjooran represented the Kerala Socialist Party in the United Front and of which he was the founder member as well as the leader. The Marxist Communist Party was another constituent member of the United Front which formed the Government. The United Front parties came into power defeating the Indian National Congress Party. The Indian National Trade Union Congress (I.N.T.U.C.) of which the 1st accused is the President owed allegiance to the Indian National Congress. The subject-matter of the imputation against the Minister was a speech purported to have been made by the 1st accused on 1-12-1968 at Trichur and the said speech was published by the 2nd accused in the Mathrubhumi dated 12 21968. The objectionable part of the speech is as follows: "The Labour Minister is a salaried employee of the Marxist Communist Party, which is one of the constituents of the United Front Government. Anarchy has been let loose in the labour sector of the State by the United Front Government."

3. The Minister stated that on account of the above imputation by the first accused and its publication by the 2nd accused his reputation was lowered in the estimate of the public. In pursuance of the complaint, the Minister as PW.1 and 6 other witnesses as PWs. 2 to 7 were examined, cross-examined and re-examined, in the lower court. After the above examination, the lower court framed charges against the accused 1 and 2 on 8 71969 under S.500 IPC. and the case was posted for further cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. While so, the Minister Mathai Manjooran died on 1511970- On 2211970 the Minister's younger brother, John Manjooran presented a petition before the lower court to permit him to prosecute the above complaint against the accused 1 and 2. The lower court by its order dated 9 31970 allowed that petition. It is against the order that the 1st accused alone has preferred this criminal revision petition.

4. S.198 Cr. PC. provides the cases in which a complaint is to be filed by some person aggrieved of the offence. S.198 Cr. PC. is quoted below:

"No court shall take cognizance of an offence falling under Chapter XIX or Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code. 45 of 1860, or under Ss, 493 to 496 (both inclusive) of the same Code. except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by such offence:

Provided that, where the person so aggrieved is a woman who. according to the customs and manners of the country, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, or where such person is under the age of eighteen years or is an idiot or lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf:

Provided further that where the person aggrieved by an offence under S.494 of the said Code

(a) is the wife, any relative of the wife may make a complaint on her behalf;

(b) is the husband, and be is serving in any of the Armed Forces of the Union under conditions which are certified by his Commanding Officer as precluding him from obtaining leave of absence to enable him to make a complaint in person, some other person authorised by the husband in accordance wit