IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 276 of 2001(A) -------------------------------------- CC.455/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ------------------------------------------------------------------------ RADHAKRISHNA KURUPPU, SREELAKSHMY STORES, KODUNGOOR. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. T.V.SIVADAS, S/O VASUDEVAN PILLAI, THADATHILYIL VEEDU, KAVUMBHAGAM KARA, CHERUVALLY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SR.) - R2 SRI.P.GOPAL - R2 SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP - R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.R.P.No. 276 of 2001(A) ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.1165/2001 IN CRL.R.P.NO. 276 of 2001 DISMISSED 22.09.2008 SD/- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ CRL.R.P.No. 276 of 2001 ------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2008 O R D E R What is under challenge in this revision petition is the order of impleadment of the 2nd respondent consequent to the death of the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When the revision petition is taken up for hearing, the revision petitioner and counsel remained absent. There was no representation. 2. I heard the counsel for the 2nd respondent and the public prosecutor. 3. The legality and regularity of the impugned order is under challenge. The father of the second respondent initiated the prosecution against the revision petitioner. When the case was pending in the court below and as stated by the learned counsel for the second respondent after the evidence of the complainant was recorded, the complainant expired. The second respondent, one of his legal representatives came forward to be impleaded as additional complainant and filed Crl. M.P CRL.R.P.No. 276/ 2001 2 No.6698/2000. Rejecting the objection of the revision petitioner, the leaned Magistrate allowed that petition. It is contended in the revision petition that the impugned order is illegal in that, all the legal representatives of the deceased complainant have not come forward for the impleadment. 4. Though, there is no specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure enabling impleadment consequent to the death of the complainant, the courts have always upheld the power of the court to order such impleadment in the ends of justice. The learned counsel for the second respondent brought to my notice the decisions of this court in Jayarajan Vs. Jayarajan [1992(2)K.L.T. 586] and Santhi Balagopal Vs. Benilde [1995(2)K.L.T 488]. The power of the court to implead can no more be under challenge. 5. The objection is that only one of the legal representatives has been impleaded in the complaint. It is not the requirement of law that all the legal representatives must be impleaded. Even if only one legal representative of the deceased is impleaded, he acts on behalf of the other legal representatives as well. Therefore, there is no scope for CRL.R.P.No. 276/ 2001 3 challenge to the impugned order on that account as well. There is nothing illegal or irregular in the procedure adopted or the impugned order requiring interference. Revision petition is therefore dismissed. The court below shall dispose of the case expeditiously. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm