9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1811X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... THE APPELLANT MR AMRISH K PANDYA, MS HANSA PUNANI FOR THE RESPONDENT ORAL ORDER 1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging judgment and order dated 22.03.2017 passed in Criminal Case No. 45998 of 2008 by learned 15th (Ad-hoc) Additional Civil Judge, Vadodara acquitting the respondent accused. 2. The original complainant Vidyaben Suryakant Amin filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the cheque issued by the respondent accused came to be bounced. After filing of complaint, on 24.01.2016, the complainant died and thereafter, the order was passed on 22.03.2017 by the learned trial court recording a finding that neithe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter. Once cognizance of the offence has been taken by the Magistrate, the trial will have its end after following due process and procedure as laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the Negotiable Instruments Act laying down that on account of death of the payee, the trial must abate. When there is no such provision either in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the Negotiable Instruments Act, then merely because the original complainant payee has died, there could not be abatement of the proceedings. The legal heirs of the original complainant are entitled to come forward and ask for their substitution in place of the complainant so as to proceed further with the trial. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the matter was pending in the higher forum, it was not possible for the heirs of the original complainant to move the Metropolitan Magistrate. They would be at liberty to take appropriate steps in view of the decision taken by this court today. 3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 4. The record proceedings clearly indicates that the complaint came to be dismissed for non-prosecution as the complainant was not available. The record proceedings also indicates that the complainant died on 24.01.2016, whereas the order came to be passed on 22.03.2017. In view of principle laid down in the decision in Anil G. Shah(supra), heir has a right to continue with the complaint and consequently therefore, this Court is of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
