SANITARY INSPECTOR KUNNAMKULAM Vs. IYYAVU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I see no reason to interfere with this acquittal ordered under S.247 of the Code. This was the second successive occasion on which the complainant was absent on the day the case was set down for hearing, and I do not see what special reason there could have been to persuade the learned Magistrate to adjourn the case as the latter part of the section permits him to. What the section says that when the complainant is absent, the Magistrate shall acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the case. Acquittal is therefore the rule and adjournment an exception for which there must be some good reason. That the complainant in this case is a Sanitary Inspector of a Municipality and the offence complained of an offence under the Municipal Act, and that the accused himself asked for an adjournment on the score that his Advocate had not come, do not seem to be reasons compelling the judicial discretion of the Magistrate to an adjournment. Nor can the fact that the complainant did appear at about 12 noon be a reason which the Magistrate could have taken into account when he made the order of acquittal at 11-45 A. M.