P T JOY Vs. MATHEW ABRAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the complainant in C. C. No. 675 of 1965 on the file of the Sub Magistrate's Court, Thiruvalla. The complaint was that the accused committed offences punishable under S.279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. After the prosecution evidence, the case was posted to 8 12 65. When the case was called on that day, the complainant was not present in Court. The Court, therefore, discharged the accused under S.259 Cr. P. C,

(2.) The petitioner canvasses the correctness of this order. S.259 of Criminal Procedure Code states,

(3.) The terms of the Section are clear that in a case where the complainant alleges the commission of an offence which is cognizable or non compoundable, the Magistrate cannot discharge the accused under the Section for the absence of the complainant. Therefore, I set aside the orders of the Court below and direct the Magistrate to take the case to his file and proceed in accordance with law.