Order.- The petitioners were the accused in Criminal Case No. 181/3 of 1967, in the Court of the First-Class Magistrate. Raichur. The offence which had been complained of against them was one punishable under section 7(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act. Process had been issued against the accused and they appeared in response to the summons and were represented by Advocate. In the meanwhile the complainant having died, an application was made on behalf of her brother’s son praying for permission to continue the prosecution. On behalf of the accused a contention had been raised to the effect that on the death of the complainant, the complaint had abated and that the accused had to be acquitted. In support of this contention, reliance appears to have been placed on the provisions of section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate rejected the contention which had been raised on behalf of the accused and he permitted the brother’s son of the deceased complainant to lead the evidence in support of the complaint. It is against that order of the Magistrate that the present revision petition has been preferred by the accused persons. 1 have heard Sri Appa Rao, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Smt. Anusuya for the respondent. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas v. State of Maharashtra1 para. 3 at page. 984: "The Code of Criminal Procedure provides only for the death of an accused or an appellant but does not expressly provide for the death of a complainant. The Code also does not provide for the abatement of inquiries and trials although it provides for the abatement of appeals on the death of the accused in appeals under sections 411-A(2) and 417 and on the death of appellant in all appeals except an appeal from sentence of fine. Therefore, what happens on the death of a complainant, in a case started on a complaint has to be inferred generally from the provisions of the Code". No uniform view appears to have been taken by the High Courts in India, on thequestion as to whether on the death of a complainant, the complaint abates and on that ground the accused must necessarily be acquitted. No uniform view appears to have been taken by the High Courts in India, on thequestion as to whether on the death of a complainant, the complaint abates and on that ground the accused must necessarily be acquitted. The view taken by Madgavkar, J., in Mohamed Azam v. Emperor2 is that even in case of non-cognizable offence instituted upon a complaint, it would be within the discretion of the trying Magistrate in proper cases to allow the complaint to continue by a prefer and fit complainant, if the latter is willing. The learned Judge took the view that section 247 of the Code was applicable primarily to the case of a complainant who was alivebut did not appear; it was doubted whether it applied to the case of a complainant that was not alive. While pointing out that the Courts would always be on their guard against needless harassment of an accused by substituting a complainant, who is not a fit person, the learned Judge stated that the trying Magistrate had the discretion in proper cases to allow the complaint to continue by a proper andfit complainant if the latter was willing. This is what has been stated in (Mohamed Azam v. Emperor2 at page 179: "But even in the case of non-cognizable offences, such as for instance bribery, as is pointed out by this Court in In re. Ganesh Narayan Sathe3, the Code does not intend to confine prosecutions to the persons directly injured........ On the whole We agree with the view of Chamier, C.J., in Damoo Sahu v. Jitan Dusadh,4 after considering Madho Chowdhry v. Turab Mian5, and Purna Chandra Moulik v. Dengar Chandra Pal6, that "it is open to doubt whether section 247 of the Code was intended to apply to such a case as this. It seems to apply primarily to the case of a complainant who is alive but does not appear.............. We are of opinion, therefore that in the present case of a non-cognizable offence instituted upon a complaint, the maxim of acto personalis moritur cum persona in civil law confined to torts, does not apply and that the trying Magistrate has discretion in proper cases to allow the complainant to continue by a proper and fit complainant, if the latter is willing. The Courts would always be on their guard against needless harassment of an accused by substituting a complainant who is not a fit person". Having regard to the fact that there is no specific provision to the effect that on the death of the complainant the complaint abates, it seems to me that the view taken in Mohamed Azam v. Emperor2, should be accepted as it is supported by sound reasons, if I may say so with great respect. Thus, the view taken by the learned Magistrate in the present case is sustainable and I find no good ground to interfere with the same in revision. This revision petition is dismissed. S.V.S. ----- Petition dismissed.