BABU RAO Vs. NANJUNDA SETTARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner was the accused before the Trial Court in a case for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the NI Act", for brevity). It was the case of the complainant that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 15th November, 2002 and had promised to repay the amount on or before 30th December, 2002. In discharge of the loan, he had issued a cheque drawn on Navnagar Urban Co-operative Bank, Krishnarajanagar, Mysore District, dated 30th December 2002.

(3.) During the pendency of this petition, the complainantrespondent is said to have died. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that though an attempt was made to bring the legal representatives of the complainant on record, even though under the CrPC, no such steps are warranted, unlike under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and in spite of his best efforts to ascertain the details of the legal representatives of the deceased-complainant, according to his information and knowledge, there are no surviving legal representatives of the complainant, and therefore, he would submit that in terms of Section 256 CrPC, the accused may be acquitted notwithstanding the complainant had died much after the trial and sentence having been imposed on the petitioner and the same having been confirmed by the Appellate Court. It is contended that in the light of the continuing proceedings, the petitioner would have the benefit of Section 256 CrPC and the option open to this Court would be as provided thereunder, since the present case arises out of a summons case.