SADHU SINGH Vs. DEVI DAYAL KOHLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE material facts leading to this order are as follows:

(2.) THE complainant's son, Sadhu Singh, after obtaining special leave under Section 417(3), Code of Criminal Procedure has filed this appeal against the aforesaid order of acquittal.

(3.) THE next contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent, however, is that Sadhu Singh was not competent to file this appeal under Section 417(3), Code of Criminal Procedure because he was not the complainant. It is maintained that this objection is not merely one of form, but is one which goes to the root of the matter. A successor -in -interest of a complainant - -proceeds the argument - -even if he had been allowed under Section 495 of the Code, in the trial Court to conduct the prosecution, does not become the "complainant" for the purposes of Section 417(3), Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance for this argument has been placed on Monmathanath v. Niranjan Modal and Ors. : A.I.R. 1967 Cal. 442 and Ninilal Samanta v. Rabin Ghosh : A.I.R. 1964 Cal. 64. There appears to be a good deal of force in this contention.