AGARWALA
RAMA SHANKER LAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution. The applicant was convicted under Sections 323 and 447, I. P. C. , by a Panchayati Adalat and fined Rs. 50 and 25 respectively for the two offences. The order of the Panchayati Adalat was confirmed on revision by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
( 2 ) TWO points have been taken before me. The first point urged is that the complainant died during the pendency of the revision before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate but after the decision by the Panchayati Adalat, and that therefore the case abated and the order of the panchayati Adalat became null and void.
( 3 ) ORDINARILY, a criminal complaint does not abate on the death of a complainant, because it is the state which is, in fact, the prosecutor; the complainant being merely a person helping the State in punishing the guilty. Reliance has been placed on Rule 101 of the Panchayat Raj Rules which runs as follows :
"if, during the pendency of a criminal case, other than a police-case, either the complainant or the accused dies, the case shall abate, but if during the pendency of a civil suit or revenue proceeding any party dies the legal representative
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.