Mathew vs Simon and Another

Velu Pillai, J.—This is an appeal by the complainant against an order of acquittal passed by the Sub-Magistrate at Pathanamthitta u/s 247 Crl. P.C. The two accused were being tried for an offence u/s 504 I.P.C. the procedure applicable being that relating to the trial of warrant cases. The learned Magistrate passed the order of acquittal on the ground, that the complainant was not present in court when the case was called. Section 247 Crl. P.C., under which the Magistrate passed the order of acquittal, has no application to the trial of warrant cases. The provision under which the Magistrate could act in a warrant case when the complainant is absent, is Section 259 Crl. P.C; but this is a provison which enables the Magistrate to discharge the accused, in a case where the charge has not been framed. In the present case, a charge had been framed against the accused, and in my view, the order of acquittal is not sanctioned by anything in Section 259 Crl. P.C. It may be mentioned, that the learned Public Prosecutor, who appeared before me, found himself unable to support the order appealed from. In the result, the order is hereby set aside and the case is sent back to the court below to be disposed off in due course of law. The appeal is allowed.