LawDistill
Supreme Court of India

ASHWIN NANUBHAI VYAS vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR on 10 October, 1966

Cites 0 provisionsCites 0 judgmentsCited by 0
Official PDFBench Mohammad Hidayatullah, Raghubar Dayal, Sarv Mittra Sikri
PETITIONER:
ASHWIN NANUBHAI VYAS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
10/10/1966
BENCH:
HIDAYATULLAH, M.
BENCH:
HIDAYATULLAH, M.
SIKRI, S.M.
DAYAL, RAGHUBAR
CITATION:
1967 AIR 983 1967 SCR (1) 807
ACT:
Code of Criminal Procedure (5 of 1898), ss. 198 and 495-
Inquiry under Chapter XVIII requiring complaint by person
aggreived-Death of complainant after filing
complaint-Effect-Power to substitute another prosecution
agency.
HEADNOTE:
During the inquiry under Chapter XVIII in respect of
offences requiring a complaint by the person aggrieved, the
complaint died after the complaint had been filed under S.
198 Cr. P.C. The application for substitution of the
complainant was resisted by the accused--appellant, on the
ground that only the aggrieved person could be the
complainant and on the complaint’s death, the complainant
must be treated as abated. The magistrate rejected the
objection,and the High Court dismissed a revision;against
it. In appeal to this Court.
HELD : The objection must be rejected.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 268, of 1964- 11 I I Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated’ August 25, 1964 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revision. Application No. 333 of 1964.

N. N. Keswani for the. appellant.

K. L. Hathi and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent No. 1. K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. R. Chaudhuri, for respondent No. 2.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, J. In this appeal, by special leave, against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay, August 25, 1965, the appellant Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas is an accused before the Presidency Magistrate’s 4th Court at Girgaon, Bombay. The case was started on the complaint under s. 198, Code of Criminal In the circumstances, the answer returned by the High Court to the two questions referred to it has to be held to be incorrect. Both the questions have to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Commissioner of Incometax, so that the answer returned by the High Court to the two questions is set aside, the first question is answered in the affirmative, and the second in the negative. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs in this Court as well as in the High Court.

R.K.P.S. Appeal Allowed.