T GOVINDANKUTTY MENON Vs. THOMAS CHANDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in C.C. No. 41 of 1953 of the Second Class Magistrate's Court, Kanayannur, is the revision petitioner. He is the Sanitary Inspector of the Ernakulam Municipality. The complaint relates to an offence under S.4(1) of the Cochin Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Act XIV of 1109. The case is that tea sold by the third accused in a shop conducted by accused 1 and 2 contained extraneous matter. After the examination of the prosecution witnesses and the defence witnesses the case was posted to 27.3.1954 for final hearing. On that day neither the complainant nor his advocate was present. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under S.247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and acquitted the accused. The revision petition is from the order of acquittal.

(2.) Two grounds were urged in this Revision petition. One is that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for adjourning a case for argument after taking the evidence of the complainant and the accused and that, therefore, failure on the part of the complainant to be present on the date to which the case was adjourned for argument cannot attract the Provisions of S.247, Code of Criminal Procedure. The other ground is that the complainant being a public servant, the proviso to S.247 would apply to the case and that the learned Magistrate went wrong in not acting under it.

(3.) So far as the first ground is concerned, it is true that there is no express provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for posting a case for argument after taking the evidence of the complainant and the accused. S.245 provides: