The discretion to proceed with the trial in the absence or death of the complainant lies with the Magistrate, and the mere death of the complainant does not terminate the criminal proceeding.

TAPEN SEN, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. R. S. Majumdar, learned Government Advocate for the State; and Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.

( 2 ) THE instant application invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for quashing the order dated 6-6-2002 passed in Criminal Revision No. 24 of 2002 by learned Sessions Judge, Koderma by reason whereof he dismissed the Revision Application itself.

( 3 ) THE revision application in turn was filed against the order dated 6-3-2002 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Case No. 136 of 2000 (T. R. No. 551 of 2002) by which he rejected the petition dated 18-6-2001 filed by these petitioners wherein they had prayed for acquitting them in terms of the provisions contained under Section 256 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and for discharging them under Section 249 of the said Code. The ground taken in the petition for acquittal and discharge was that the complainant had died on 6-6-2001 and that cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was barred by limitation.

( 4 ) THE short facts which are necessary to be taken note of in this case is that on 2-6-2000 one Ratan Lal Chhabra filed Complaint Case No. 136 of 2000 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma against 5 (five) accused persons including these petitioners. It is relevant to note that accused No. 1 (Ajay Kumar Agarwala) is petitioner No. 1 in this case while the accused No. 2 (Goutam Agarwala) is his son. The complaint petition discloses that both of them as also the wife of Ajay Kumar Agarwala and his other son, i. e. , Deepak Agarwala were all made accused persons with a specific statement that both were incharge and responsible in matters relating to the affairs of the company of which accused No. 1 (petitioner No. 1) is the President. The company is known as M/s. Hi Rise Exports (Pvt.) Ltd. It is also relevant to note that the said company was also made accused No. 5 in the said complaint case the allegations contained in the body of the said memo of complaint is that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 (Ajay Kumar Agarwala and his wife Geeta Agarwala-President and Director respectively of the company) along with their staff came to the complainants Mica Godown at Jhumritalaiya in a Car on 1-10-1999 between 3-4 p. m. when he was busy with his workers and was talking to some other persons who had come to purchase mica from his own business premises. It was further alleged that the accused No. 1 in the presence of the accused No. 2 informed the complainant that for the export business of their company (accused No. 5), they were in dire need of some mica which were available at Giridih. Accordingly, this requested the complaint to sell mica as per their requirements mentioned in paragraph 3 of the memo of complaint andassured that they would immediately pay the price thereof by 2 (two) account payee cheques of State Bank of India, Giridih Bazar Branch. Further case of the complainant was that he was initially not willing to sell the mica to the accused Nos. 1 and 5 (meaning thereby the President of the company and the company itself) but on persuasion of the accused No. 1 and also upon his assurance of immediate payment and upon repeated requests, the complainant as alleged was induced to sell mica to them worth Rs. 7,30,000. 00 (Rupees seven lakh thirty thousand only ). The further case of the complainant was that these articles were sold under due pass, challan and bill and in lieu thereof the accused persons issued 2 (two) cheques worth Rupees 5,00,000 (Rupees five lakh) and Rupees 2,30,000/- (Rupees two lakh thirty thousand) respectively both being dated 1-10-1999 drawn on State Bank of India, Giridih Bazar Branch favouring the complainant. The said cheques were also signed by the petition No. 1 in the capa