A Descendant Cannot Join as Co-Plaintiff Where the Criminal Prosecution Was Initiated Solely by the Public Prosecutor.
Headnote
Where the public prosecutor institutes a criminal action for snatching and, together with the criminal charge, seeks an order that the accused restore the stolen property or compensate the owner in the amount of 1,500 baht, the child of the deceased injured person is not entitled to intervene as a co-plaintiff under Section 29 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if the injured person had not himself commenced the prosecution prior to his death. Section 29 permits a descendant to carry on the action only where the injured person, having already brought the case, subsequently dies. Accordingly, where the prosecution was initiated solely by the public prosecutor, the descendant has no procedural standing to enter the case as a co-plaintiff. Upon the accused’s confession, judgment should be entered convicting him as charged, while dismissing the application for intervention.
Legal Case Summary
The accused snatched a gold necklace worth 1,500 baht from the injured person, later sold it, and spent all the proceeds. During the investigation, the police had already recorded the injured person’s statement; however, before trial, the injured person died from illness. Thereafter, the public prosecutor filed a criminal action against the accused for snatching and also requested restitution or payment of the value of the property to the owner. At the same time, Mr. C, the son of the deceased injured person born of a non-registered marital relationship, applied to join the proceedings as a co-plaintiff with the public prosecutor. The accused pleaded guilty. The court should convict the accused in accordance with the charge. However, Mr. C’s application to join as a co-plaintiff must be rejected, because the right under Section 29 of the Criminal Procedure Code arises only where the injured person had originally instituted the action himself and later died, in which event a descendant may continue the case in his place. Since this case was commenced by the public prosecutor, not by the injured person, no such right of substitution arises.