SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1952 Supreme(All) 318

AGARWALA
RAMA SHANKER LAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AMBIKA PRASAD

AGARWALA, J.

( 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







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top