M/S.T.M.Food Processing Ltd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 2633 AP

                                                       280 to 291

               HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::
                      AMARAVATHI

     MAIN CASE No.: Crl.R.C.Nos.777, 778, 785, 786, 789,
                      791 793, 797 and 856 of 2022
                              And
     Crl.P.Nos.911, 842 of 2023 and Crl.P.No.8665 of 2022

                         PROCEEDING SHEET

S.
                                    ORDER

No     DATE

     28.04.2023 BSB, J

                      IA   (SR)    No.93983      of    2022    in

Crl.R.C.No.789 of 2022 is filed, under Section 302 and 482 of Cr.P.C. to grant leave and permit the petitioners to bring on record the third respondent herein being the legal representative of the deceased second respondent/complainant as respondent in the above Criminal Revision Petition No.789 of 2022.

At the time of scrutiny of the above IA (SR) in CRLR.C., the office has raised the following objection:

"Under which provision of this petition is maintainable. Please clarify".

Counsel for the petitioner re- submitted the case endorsing as under:

"Section (2) (wa) Criminal Procedure Code defines „victim‟ and it would include his or her legal heir. The word victim as found in the cannot be rendered restrictive meaning and must be liberally construed. The applications filed to come on record or to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased complainant/victim are maintainable and can be filed under Section 256 (in case of summons case). Section 302 of the Code provide power to this Hon‟ble Court to appoint legal representative or even an advocate to defend the case of the complainant/victim (second respondent therein) and such appointment can be made by an application or by the Hon‟ble Court in the absence of any such application. (see Chand Devi Dag & Others Vs Manju K.Humatni) 2018 (1) SCC 71). No separate application for leave is a necessary and the applications filed by the petitioner are sufficient to bring on record the legal representatives of the second respondent /complainant/victim. A copy of the judgment referred above is already furnished to the registry".

In this connection the office submitted:-

1. As mentioned in the compliance the Judgment copy in 2018(1) SCC 71) was not filed.

2. As stated in the affidavit neither final report nor Death Certificate filed.

3. cause title is incorrect in delay condonation petition.

In view of the objections and reply given, Registry is directed to register the petition subject to the condition that the decision on the objection about maintainability be decided at the time of final disposal of the petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner requested to extend the interim Order in I.A.No.01 of 2022 since the LRs of the deceased/defacto complainant have to come on record, learned counsel represented that he would take steps to file the necessary application before the trial Court before the next date of adjournment.

In the batch of the matters which are being tried together in some cases where no need to bring the LRs on record, if the trial is proceeded, it would cause hardship and therefore interim order was extended in C.C.No.554 of 2017 in Crl.R.C.Nos.777, 778 and 797 of 2022. In the rest of the cases where the LR application is to be filed the interim order is not extended to enable the LRs to be brought on record.

Both parties are directed to cooperate to expedite the process of bringing LRs on record forthwith.

Post the matter on 08.05.2023.

__________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI,J

KLNS