G.S.SARRAF, J. - (1.) IN this appeal an application has been filed with the prayer that the applicants Smt. Kamla Devi (wife of the deceased complainant) and Om Prakash (son of the deceased complainant) may be substituted in place of the deceased complainant-appellant Panna Lal and they may be allowed to prosecute this leave to appeal.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present controversy may be summarized thus. The complainant Panna Lal filed a complaint against the respondent Rameshwar Lal under Section 133 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). By judgment dated 26.7.2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur in case No. 201/99 the accused respondent Rameshwar Lal was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. Aggrieved by this judgment the complainant Panna Lal filed Special Leave to Appeal. During the pendency of this special leave to appeal the complainant Panna Lal died and thereafter the applicants Smt. Kamla Devi and Om Prakash have filed this application for substitution and for permission to prosecute this leave to appeal. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, learned Counsel for the respondent and learned Public Prosecutor.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicants submits that there is no provision in Cr.P.C. for abatement of the proceedings on the ground of death of the complainant and, therefore, the applicants be allowed to be substituted in place of the deceased complainant and they may be allowed to prosecute this special leave to appeal. He places reliance on a decision of Bombay High Court reported in 1999(4) Crimes 69 and on a decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 1977 Cri.L.J. 1258.;