ARUN KUMAR SEN Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is one of the accused in the case C/2145 of 1982 has moved this court in revision being aggrieved by the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 6th Court, Calcutta dated 19.11.86 permitting the sou of the complainant to proceed with the case on the death of the in a case in which summons has been issued on complaint.

(2.) The petitioner states as follows :

(3.) On the complaint of late Birendra Nath Paul the learned Magistrate issued process on the petitioner and his wife and daughter under sections 355, 504 and 506, I.P.C. The complainant was prosecuting the case most negligently and only a few witnesses were examined. Ultimately on 3.6.86 the petitioner was present but the complainant was absent. His learned Advocate reported that he had died. But the learned Magistrate without recording any reason whatsoever adjourned the case. As the complainant had died it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to acquit the accused persons under section 256(1), Cr. P. C. or at least to record his reason for not passing such order, but the learned Magistrate simply fixed another date. Subsequently on 4.7.86 the opposite party no. 2 applied for being permitted to continue with the proceeding to which the petitioner raised serious objection. But this learned Magistrate by his order dated 19.11.86 permitted the opposite party to prosecute the case.