STATE OF MYSORE Vs. HAMEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is directed against the order dt.12-5-1971 passed by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Chikmagalur, in CC.No.239 of 1971 acquitting the lour respondents who were accused 1 to 4 before him and who will also be referred to as such in the course of this judgment, of the offence for contravening the provisions of clause (1) of Rule 154 of Mysore Forest Rules, 1969, read with S.86 of the Mysore Forest Act.

(2.) The charge sheet in the case was filed on 10-2-1971 and on the same day the case was taken on file and summonses were issued to all the accused returnable on 27-2-1971. On 27-2-1971 only accused-4 appeared and so fresh summons were issued to accused 1 to 3 returnable on 19-3- 1971. On 19-3-1971, in response to the summons, accused 1 to 3 appeared and the case was then adjourned to 22-4-1971 on which day the complainant and the accused were all present. But, as the Presiding Officer was on casual leave, the case was adjourned to 12-5-1971. On that day, it appears, the complainant and his witnesses and also the accused were all absent, and the learned Magistrate purporting to act under S.247, CrPC. acquitted the accused of the said offence, and it is the legality and the correctness of that order that are assailed in this appeal. The respondents-accused though served with notice of his appeal, have remained absent.

(3.) It was contended by the learned State Public Prosecutor that the learned Magistrate did not exercise proper discretion but acted mechanically while passing the impugned order. Elaborating his contention he submitted that the accused were all absent on the day the impugned order was passed and the learned Magistrate could not have proceeded with the hearing of the case even if the complainant and his witnesses were present and that in these circumstance he should not have proceeded to pass the impugned order without adjourning the case He further submitted that the consequences that would flow from such an order would be grave and would seriously affect the interests of the complainant and that the learned Magistrate without realising the same and without any valid grounds for not adjourning the case was not justified in passing the impugned order in such haste. The learned State Public Prosecutor also drew our attention to the following observations of this Court in Rangasetty v. Kunna Setty, 1900 Mys.L.J. 1033, 1034: