AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 156 wordsHorwill, J.—The day after the charge was framed the complainant was absent. The Magistrate thereupon passed an order purporting to be
u/s 258(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code acquitting the accused.
Where a Magistrate has framed a charge, he cannot dismiss the ease for default. The only section which deals with the procedure upon default
of appearance of the complainant in warrant cases is Section 259, which authorises the Magistrate in his discretion to discharge the accused at any
time before the charge is framed if the complainant fails to appear. The Magistrate could not have acted under that section because the charge had
already been framed; and there can be no discharge after the charge has been framed.
The Magistrate therefore acted illegally. His order of acquittal is therefore set aside and he is ordered to continue the trial from the point at which
it was when he passed the order of acquittal.