Heard.

2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with

the consent of the learned counsel for the parties taken

for final hearing.

3. The facts of the case are that:

The respondent filed a private complaint under

Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short

the 8N.I Act9). The Trial Court took cognizance and posted

the matter for sworn statement. After recording the sworn

statement, a criminal case came to be registered in C.C

No.35/2018. The Trial Court on 19.11.2019 passed an

order, the said portion of the order extracted as follows:-

- 3 -

<On perusal of records, it is revealed the death

of complainant was reported on 16.08.2019 and till

today, the LRs of complainant have not filed

application and vakalath by seeking permission to

come on record. The learned counsel for

complainant has not filed the vakalath of the legal

heirs of the complainant till today.

Immediately after death of complainant, his

vakalath seizes and his counsel without filing

vakalath of the legal heirs, has no authority to

represent the case. Hence the request made by

Sri. SSL advocate cannot be considered and the

same is rejected.

Accordingly the complaint is dismissed abated.=

4.

Against the order of dismissal of the complaint

passed by the Trial Court, the legal representatives of the

complainant have approached the I Additional District and

Sessions Judge Bangalkot, sitting at Jamkhandi praying to

allow the petition and permit them to come on record as

legal representatives of the complainant. The Sessions

Court allowed the revision petition and permitted them to

come on record and also directed the Trial Court to restore

the complaint.

- 4 -

5.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 07.05.2022

passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Petition

No.114/2020, the petitioner 3accused approached this

Court challenging the validity of the order passed by the

Sessions Court.

6.

Heard Sri. Vijayendra Bheemakkanavar, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Pavan Doddatti, learned

counsel for the respondent.

7.

Sri.

Vijayendra

Bheemakkanavar

learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by

the Sessions Court in Crl.RP.No.114/2020 is erroneous and

illegal and also without jurisdiction. Hence, the same is

liable to be set aside.

8.

It is further submitted that, the complainant

reported as dead on 16.08.2019 during the pendency of

the proceedings. Inspite of having been granted sufficient

opportunities, the learned counsel for the complainant

failed to bring the LRs. of the complainant on record.

- 5 -

Therefore, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint as

abated and acquitted the accused.

9.

It is further submitted that the said order of

dismissal of complaint and acquittal of the accused for the

death of the complainant amounts to acquittal of the

accused. Therefore, the complainant or his legal

representative ought to have approached the High Court

by way of filing criminal appeal. However, the legal

representative

of

the

complainant

approached

the

Sessions Court by way of filing criminal revision and

obtained the order of restoration of complaint is erroneous

and liable to be set aside.

10.

Per contra, Sri. Pavan B. Doddatti, learned

counsel for the respondent submits that the legal

representative are construed as victims and they are

entitled to file criminal revision petition against the order

of dismissal of complaint either for non prosecution or for

- 6 -

the death of the complainant. The order of the Sessions

Court in the revision petition is justifiable and sustainable

under law. Therefore, there is no error committed by the

Sessions Court in passing the order. As such, the learned

counsel sought to dismiss the petition.

11.

After having heard the submission of the

learned counsel for the parties, the point for consideration

is

<Whether the order passed by the Sessions

Court in criminal revision petition filed by the legal

repr