IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.627 of 1999 (O&M) Date of decision: 4th March, 2009 Virvinder Singh … Petitioner Versus Abdul Rasid Kurasi and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: None. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Late Mehar Singh had filed a complaint against Abdul Rasid Kurasi, Shbana Begam, Mumtaj Begam, Samir Khan, Dilbag Khan and Molu Khan under Section 342, 504, 506, 323, 148 and 149 IPC. On 1st December, 1998, the complaint was dismissed as counsel for the complainant had placed on record death certificate of complainant Mehar Singh. Son of the complainant, Virvinder Singh filed the present revision petition in this Court. It has been contended in the revision petition that the complainant had died on 6th October, 1998 and in case of death of the complainant, complaint in non-cognizable offence does not abate. Therefore, petitioner should have been impleaded as legal representative. Revision petition was filed after a delay of 72 days. Perusal of record shows that various opportunities were given to the petitioner to serve accused No.1 to 3. Only Mr.Ranjit Saini has caused appearance for accused No.4 and 5. Various opportunities were given to the petitioner to furnish correct addresses, which had not been given. Delay was not Criminal Revision No. 627 of 1999 condoned. However, revision petition was admitted on December 6, 2001. Complainant Mehar Singh had expired on 19th December, 1993. He was caused simple injuries by the accused respondent. Offence, under Section 342 IPC is punishable with sentence of imprisonment for one year, under Section 504 IPC with imprisonment for two years, under Section 506 IPC for imprisonment for two years and under Section 323, maximum sentence which can be awarded is one year. Nobody appeared for the petitioner on December 6, 2001, when revision petition was admitted. Today also, nobody has caused appearance. I have taken recourse to Section 403 Cr.P.C. and had proceeded to decide the present revision petition. Occurrence, in the present case, has taken place on 19th December, 1993. Complainant, father of the petitioner had died on 6th October, 1998. Complaint was dismissed on filing of death certificate of the complainant on 1st December, 1998. Occurrence is more than 15 years old. For the sake of arguments, even if the contention is accepted, delay in filing the present revision petition is condoned and son of the complainant is allowed to prosecute the accused respondents, then trial will commence de-novo after sixteen years, for offences which are punishable to the maximum sentence varying from one to two years. The right of accused to have speedy trial, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, shall stand defeated. No interference is warranted. Hence the present revision petition is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 4, 2009 rps 2