(1.) IN this batch of criminal appeals which unfortunately the State has thought fit to file against the acquittal of the accused there is this common feature as mentioned by the learned Public Prosecutor. The prosecution was started at the instance of a Forest Officer for alleged offences under the Forest Act. On the date fixed for hearing, no one was present to conduct the prosecution and no witnesses were called on behalf of the prosecution. IN the circumstances, the Magistrate acquitted the accused under S. 244 of the Travancore Code of Criminal procedure. By mistake the number of the section is shown as 245 in the order.
(2.) THE only point urged by the learned Public Prosecutor is that according to the proviso to S. 244, it was open to the Magistrate to dispense with the attendance of the complainant who is a public servant and on whose report cognizance was taken of the offence by the Magistrate. But there is nothing to indicate that the circumstances warranted any such concession being granted to the officer of the Forest Department at whose instance the proceedings were started. Moreover, that officer did not even have the courtesy to summon witnesses on the date to which the case stood adjourned to his knowledge nor was any representation made as to why witnesses were not summoned or as to why the officer who was to conduct the prosecution, the officer on whose complaint the proceedings were started, happened to be absent from the magistrate's Court. THEre was gross discourtesy shown to the Magistrate by the officers concerned and this in our view appears to be a proper case in which disciplinary action should be taken against them. We see no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order made by the Magistrate and dismiss these appeals. Send a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary to government in order that the Government may consider whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Forest Officers who had absented themselves on the date to which the case stood adjourned.