C. LAKSHMAMMA Vs. M. VENKATASWAMI REDDI & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the complainant against the acquittal of the respondents under S. 247, Cr. P. C. on account of her non-appearance when the case wail called for hearing on 8-10-56. The complaint is that the accused beat the complainant and committed offences punishable under S. 323, I.P.C.

(2.) It is urged in appeal that the complainant lives about 25 miles away from the Court house and that as it was raining heavily on 8-10-56 and as she is an old woman, she could not catch the bus in time to attend the hearing. Admittedly, no representation was made to the Magistrate on the date of the hearing although the complainant had engaged a vakil, and the Magistrate had no other alternative except to pass an order of acquittal under S. 247 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel does not suggest that there was any error, omission or irregularity on the part of the Magistrate. The position is similar to that in Natesa, Naicker v. Hari Gramani 1947 M.W.N. 490 where it was held that the order of acquittal under S. 247 was perfectly legal and competent and could not be interfered with in revision. But it is argued by the learned counsel that as the complainant has now a right of appeal under S. 417 Cr. P. C., and is not coming up merely in revision, and as she has offered an explanation for her absence and as the case was posted for the first time for hearing on 8-10-1956, the order of acquittal should be aside in the interests of justice. But the explanation of the appellant for her absence on the date of the hearing is belated and unconvincing. As already mentioned, her counsel did not ask for an adjournment. Moreover, it is not her case that there were no buses available for her to reach the Court house on that day. She merely says that she missed the bus which would have taken her to the Court in time. She did not attempt to go to the Court house by the subsequent bus on that day a she would have done if she was really anxious to prosecute the case. In the circumstances. I do not consider this is a fit case to interfere with the acquittal. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.