SUBRAMANI Vs. SARANGAPANI AND FIVE ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant, whose case was disposed of for his absence under Section 256(1), Code of Criminal Procedure acquitting the Respondents herein, has filed the above appeal challenging the acquittal.

(2.) THE Appellant filed a private complaint against the Respondents, which was taken on file by the learned Judicial II Class Magistrate, Tirukoilur as C.C. No. 298 of 1985 for offences under Sections 147, 448, 323 and 355, IPC. Summons were issued lo the Respondents and they appeared on 4 -10 -85 and were given copies of the complaint. For further proceedings the case was posted to 9 -10 -85, on which date the Appellant was absent, while the Respondents were all present. The learned magistrate acting under Section 256(1), Code of Criminal Procedure acquitted the Respondents, against which this appeal is filed.

(3.) PER contra, Thiru S. Mahimairaj, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents would contend that Section 256(1), Code of Criminal Procedure contains no such limitation as suggested by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. On the contrary section 256(1), Code of Criminal Procedure contains an imperative to the trial Court, that the complaint shall be dismissed, unless for reasons the learned Magistrate chooses to adjourn the case, recording his reasons.