A.P.Srivastava, J. - (1.) This application in revision arose out of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The proceedings started on the basis of a police report. A number of persons were then impleaded by the learned Magistrate as opposite parties and were directed to file their written statements One of them was Bhagwati Prasad Pandey. Written statements were filed. Affidavits and documents were produced. The Magistrate could not decide the question of possession himself and made a reference to the Munsif under Section 146 of the Code, While the reference was pending before the Munsif, Bhagwati Pd. Pandey died. The Munsif thereupon sent the case back to the learned Magistrate for bringing on record the legal representatives of Bhagwati Pd. Pandey as permitted by Sub-section (7) of Section 145, Bhagwati Pd. Pandey had left three sons including the present applicant Hanuman Prasad Pandey. All the three sons of Bhagwati Pd. Pandey were impleaded in the case in his place as his legal representatives. One of them Sarju Prasad Pandey was actually present when the order impleading the legal representatives was passed but the other two were not there. The learned Magistrate after having impleaded all the three sons directed notice to issue to the two sons who were not present at the time of his order to enable them to appear before the learned Munsif on a specified date. Against the order of the Magistrate impleading him as a legal representative of the deceased the applicant went up in revision to the learned Sessions Judge. The point he took was; that he could not have been impleaded as a legal representative of the deceased without having been served with a notice to show cause. The point did not impress to the learned Sessions Judge who dismissed the application in revision summarily taking the view that no ground for interference had been made out.
(2.) The applicant Hanuman Prasad has now come to this Court in revision and it is urged on his behalf that he could not have been impleaded as a legal representative of the deceased without a notice being served upon him and that by his being impleaded in that manner he is likely to be greatly prejudiced as he will not be in a position to examine himself as a witness or to produce other evidence before the learned Munsif or in subsequent proceeding before the learned Magistrate.
(3.) Sub-section (7) of Section 145 Cr.P.C. reads like this: When any party to any such proceeding dies, the Magistrate may cause the legal representative of the deceased party to be made a party to the proceedings and shall thereupon continue the inquiry and if any question arises as to who the legal representative of a deceased party for the purpose of such proceeding is, all persons claiming to be representatives of the deceased party shall be made parties thereto. It will be noticed that there is no provision in it requiring notice to be served on any person who is to be impleaded as a legal representative of a deceased party. The sub-section expressly provides that if there is a dispute as to who is the legal representative of the deceased, it need not be decided. All the persons claiming to be such representatives, will be made parties. When the sub-section itself does not provide for the issuing of a notice to a person before he is to be impleaded as a legal representative of the deceased party the applicant cannot make a grievance of the fact that a notice was not issued to him before he was brought on record. It is not contended by him that he is not the legal representative of the deceased. It is conceded that he being one of the three sons of the deceased was liable to be brought on record as his legal representative.;