Madiwalappa Naikodi Since Deceased By His Legal Representatives, Laxmibai Naikodi and Saibanna Naikodi vs The State of Karnataka

A.S. Pachhapure

The legal representatives of the deceased Madiwalappa have challenged the order in Criminal Revision Petition No. 86/2011 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Bijapur dated 18.07.2012, dismissing the revision petition. The facts reveal that there was a dispute in respect of the land bearing See. No. 241/1 of Alagur village. The Taluka Executive Magistrate initiated the proceedings u/s 145 of Cr. P.C. He passed an order appointing one S.K. Math Revenue Inspector of Devara Hipparagi as receiver of the disputed land. Aggrieved by the said order, Madiwalappa preferred a revision petition in Crl. Revision Petition No. 86/2011. During the pendency of the said revision, Madiwalappa died on 02.09.2011. The fact of his death was not brought to the notice of learned Sessions Judge either by the counsel or by the prosecutor. It is in these circumstances, as the counsel was absent on the date when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Sessions Judge after hearing the public prosecutor and by perusing the records has dismissed revision petition. Aggrieved by the order, the legal representatives have preferred this petition u/s 482 of Cr. P.C.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional SPP.

The petitioners have produced the death extract of Madiwalappa and it reveals that Madiwalappa died on 02.09.2011, even before the mater was taken up for hearing by the learned Sessions Judge. Though it was the duty on the part of the counsel to inform the death of Madiwalappa and to take steps to bring the legal representatives on record. The fact of death was not brought to the notice of the Court. It is in these circumstances though the counsel was not present on the date when the case was heard, the learned Sessions Judge after perusal of the material placed on record and hearing the prosecutor has dismissed the revision petition. In view of the death of Madiwalappa, the revision petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, there is no opportunity to the Lrs. (petitioners herein) for hearing. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge will have to be set aside solely on the ground that the revision petitioner was dead prior to the date when the matter was taken up for hearing and his legal representatives have no opportunity of hearing. In the result the petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl. Revision Petition No. 86/2011 is set aside and the petitioners are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge on 16.10.2012 and submit their applications for bringing them on record. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge shall give an opportunity to the parties and dispose of the revision petition in accordance with law.