JLTENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 16-7-1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mirzapur allowing the revision setting aside the order dated 12-1-99 by which the com plaint was dismissed under Section 256, Cr. P. C and directing the Magistrate to decide the case in accordance with law.

(2.) THE learned C. J. M. held that the counsel for the complainant had come but he had not filed any application for ad journment. None responded from the side of the complainant when the case was called at 3. 00 p. m. THE learned Magistrate observed that no reason for non ap pearance of the complainant has been as signed nor any witness was present. THEre fore, the complaint was liable to be dis missed under Section 256, Cr. P. C,

(3.) IT is true that the order of the dismissal of the complaint under Section 256, Cr. P. C. amounts to acquittal and it is equally true that the complainant has right to file appeal with leave of the High Court by virtue of Section 378, Cr. P. C. The only question that requires consideration is whether the revisional Court could inter fere with the order in revisional jurisdic tion if no appeal has been preferred.