FAZLAR RAHAMAN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals and the revision case are connected and arise out of the same matter. Aziz Mia, the appellant in appeal No. 935 and the petitioner in revision case No. 29 of 1930, filed a complaint before the Chief Presidency Magistrate against one Afaq Ali on the allegation that he had given him Rs. 50 to be made over to Fazlar Rahaman, the appellant in appeal No. 934 of 1929, and the money was misappropriated by Afaq Ali. The learned Magistrate ordered the issue of a warrant on a charge under Section 406, I.P.C. The ease was adjourned from time to time as "the warrant was not returned. On 1 October 1929 the warrant came back executed, but as the accused did not appear a proclamation was ordered to be issued. The order was thus recorded: Proclamation dates: data of publication 21 October 1329 put up 29 October 1929. Date of appearance 21 November 1929.

(2.) On 21 October the accused appeared in Court, surrendered and was released on bail. The order passed was: Recall proclamation. Inform complainant fixing date 28 October 1929.

(3.) It was the date originally fixed for the matter to be put up before the Magistrate after the publication of the proclamation. On 28 October the following order was passed: Complainant absent said to have gone to his native country. Accused says that the complainant was seen in Court. Pleader for complainant now asks for a month's time. This is absurd. The accused is discharged under Section 253, Criminal P.C.