HARI SARAN SINGH Vs. PATANGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Bechu Singh was the opposite party in proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. He died during the pendency of the case before the Magistrate. His legal representative had, therefore, to be brought on the record. The applicant, Hari Saran Singh, claimed to be the son of Bechu Singh deceased, who, according to him, was also known as Baldeo Singh. Therefore, he made an application before the Magistrate praying for being impleaded as party to the proceedings in place of Bechu Singh deceased. The Magistrate examined the Sabhapati and Lekhpal of the village with their respective records, under Section 540 Cr. P. C. , and relying on their statements the Magistrate held on 29-61963 that Bechu Singh deceased had no alias of being called Baldeo Singh and that the name of the applicant's father being Baldeo Singh, he was not the heir or legal representative of Bechu Singh deceased. The applicant went up in revision before the Sessions Judge which was dismissed by him on 13-2-1966. Hence this revision.

(2.) IT appears that none of the courts below cared to read Sub-section (7) of Section 145 Cr. P. C. which was relevant to the controversy in question. It runs as under:

(3.) IN view of the above mandatory provision of law fee Magistrate had no choice except to implead the applicant as a party to the proceeding when he claimed to be the legal representative of the deceased party. The Magistrate, had no jurisdiction to embark upon on elaborate inquiry regarding the claim of the applicant.