Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SHRI BALASAHEB K. THACKERAY AND ANR. versus SHRL VENKAT @ BABRU AND ANR.

Decided
5 July 2006
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)

Citations

Official
[2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 301 · 2006 INSC 401
Also cited as
  • (2006) 5 SCC 530 (21 citing judgments)
  • (2006) 2 SCC(CRI) 630 (3 citing judgments)
  • JT 2006 (7) SC 44 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. An interesting question as to what is the effect of the death of the complainant arises for consideration in this case. When the matter was listed for hearing, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent no. I, who was the complainant has died and, therefore, the proceedings initiated on the basis of said complainant do not survive. Learned counsel for the legal heirs of the complainant submitted that they propose to continue the proceedings and file an appropriate application thereof.

p. 302, margin C

A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice:

p. 302, margin E

Shri Venkat@ Babru (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') filed a private complaint bearing No.R.Crl.C No. I 07 of 1994 on 7.9.1994 against the appellant and four others in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sailu, District Parbhani alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). Subsequently, the complaint against the three reporters was withdrawn and proceedings are continuing against the appellants i.e. the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a newspaper "Dainik Samna". The allegation in the complaint was that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention had published news in respect of the complainant in their newspaper published from Aurangabad on various dates. It was alleged in the complaint that due to the report, the reputation of the complainant was tarnished and he was defamed. After hearing arguments learned Magistrate issued process by order dated 15.9.1994. A petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') was filed before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench which was dismissed by the judgment impugned in the appeal. The appellants filed Special Leave Petition (SLP (Crl.) No.4367 of2003). After notice, the appeal was admitted on 3.2.2005. When the matter was taken for hearing on 3 1.5.2006 it was pointed out that the respondent no. I-complainant had died on 3.8.2005.

pp. 302–303, margin E

Learned counsel for the appellants with reference to Section 256 of Code submitted that the complaint was to be dismissed on the ground of death of the complainant. As noted above learned counsel for the respondent no. I's legal heirs submitted that the legal heirs of the complainant shall an application for permission to prosecute and, therefore, the complaint still survives consideration.

p. 303, margin A

At this juncture it is relevant to take note of what has been stated this Court earlier on the principles applicable. In Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas The State of Maharashtra and Anr .. AIR (1967) SC 983 with reference Section 495 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred as the 'Old Code') it was held that the Magistrate had the power to permit a relative to act as the ccmplainant to continue the prosecution. In Jimmy Jahangir Madan v. Bally Car~vappa Hindley (dead) by lrs., [2004) 12 SCC 509 after referring to Ashwin 's case (supra) it was held that heir of complainant can be allowed to file a petition under Section 302 of the Code to continue the prosecution.

p. 303, margin C

Section 302 of the Code reads as under:- "302. Permission to conduct prosecution - (I) Any Magistrate inquiring into or trying a case may permit the prosecution to be conducted any person other than a police officer below the rank of Inspector; but no person, other than the Advocate General or Government Advocate or a Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, shall be entitled to do so without such permission:

p. 303, margin E

Provided that no police officer shall be permitted to conduct prosecution if he has taken pa1t in the investigati<Jn into the offence with respect to which the accused is being prosecuted.

p. 303, margin F

(2) Any person conducting the prosecution may do so personally or by a pleader."

p. 303, margin G

To bring in application of Section 302 of the Code, permission conduct prosecution has to be obtained from the Magistrate inquiring into trying a case. The Magistrate is empowered to permit prosecution to A conducted by any person other than a police officer below the rank of Inspector; but no person other than the Advocate-General or the Government Advocate or a Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor shall be entitled to do so without such permission.

pp. 303–304, margin G

Above being th1~ position, if any penn ission is sought for by the legal heirs of the deceased complainant to continue prosecution, the same shall be considered in its perspective by the Court dealing with the matter. It is brought to the notice that by order dated 13. l 0.2003 further proceedings before the Magistrate are stayed. In that background, Mr. Adsure submitted that the

p. 304

application shall be filed before this Court. If and when any application is filed the same shall lbe dealt with appropriately. Ordered accordingly.

p. 304, margin B

K.K.T. Appeal pending.

p. 304, margin C