Legal heir continuation in cheque dishonour prosecution upheld; death of complainant did not require abatement.

On the death of a complainant in a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the proceeding does not necessarily abate where the Criminal Procedure Code contains no provision for such abatement. A court may, in appropriate cases, permit a legal heir to continue the prosecution, and that permission is not an impermissible substitution of a new complainant when it only authorises continuation by an heir. The existence of other heirs does not by itself invalidate such permission. The Calcutta High Court therefore upheld the order allowing one legal heir to prosecute the complaint and declined revisional interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the death of the original complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, one of the legal heirs could be permitted to continue the proceeding by substitution, and whether the revisional court should interfere with the order granting such permission.

Analysis: The decision relied on the settled principle that the death of a complainant does not necessarily abate a criminal complaint when the Code does not provide for such abatement. The earlier authorities recognised that, in appropriate cases, a court may permit a person other than the complainant to conduct the prosecution, and that legal heirs may seek permission to continue the proceeding. The court found that the order under challenge did not amount to an impermissible substitution of a new complainant, but was a lawful permission enabling one legal heir to prosecute the case. It also noted that the existence of other heirs did not invalidate the permission granted to the heir who chose to proceed.

Conclusion: The order allowing one legal heir to continue the prosecution was upheld, and no interference was called for.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the criminal procedure does not mandate abatement on the death of a complainant, the court may permit a legal heir to continue the prosecution, and such permission is valid if granted in accordance with law.

---