Arali Nagaraj, J.

Despite receipt of notice of this appeal, the respondents No.1 to 4, who were

respectively accused Nos. 1 to 4 before the Trail Court, have remained absent.

2. Heard Sri. A.V. Ramakrishna, the Learned High Court Government Pleader, and perused the impugned order.

3. This appeal is by the complainant-State aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2008 passed in CC No.780/2007 by the Learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Nanjangud (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trail Court’ for short), acquitting all the accused Nos. 1 to 4 (respondents herein) of the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC.

4. The facts leading to the present appeal are as under:

All the accused Nos. 1 to 4 were chargesheeted by the police of Nanjangud PS for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The charge was framed against all the accused therein for the said offences on 24.6.2008. The said case stood posted to 15.1.2009 for recording further evidence for the prosecution and summons and NBWS were issued to the charge witnesses.

5. On 15.12.2008, the learned JMFC advanced the case suo-motu from 15.1.2009 and by his impugned order closed the case and thereby acquitted all the accused of the said offences despite the Learned APP opposing the disposal of the case without recording the evidence for the prosecution. The impugned order reads as under:

“Case is suo-motu advanced to 15.12.2008. Considering the docket pressure on the Courts, on the direction of the Hon’ble High Court, the District Court, Mysore by its letter No.11288/2008 dtd:2.12.2008 has directed this Court to dispose off all the criminal cases involving petty offences and compoundable offences by the end of the 31st Dec. 2008 following the ratio laid down in the AIR 1996 SC 1619 and ILR 2003 Karnataka 3958. Further on 10.12.2008 during review meeting held in District Court regarding work done in Lok Adalaths and also literacy programs conducted for the year, the Hon’ble Dist., Judge gave very strict oral direction that irrespective of the duration of the pendency whatever cases involving compoundable offences and petty offences pending as on 13.11.2008 must all be disposed off without fail before 31.12.2008 regardless of the procedural aspects and that no case of that category should be left un disposed.

Learned APP is present and opposed disposal of the case stating that the interest of justice would suffer.

The charge sheet has been failed for the offence under Sec. 341, 323, 324 read with 34 IPC. The offences are compoundable in nature. In view of the directions mentioned above the proceedings are closed. The accused No. 1 to 4 are acquitted of the said offence and their bail bonds are cancelled. Case property stick and stone shall be destroyed in accordance with law after appeal period. Intimate the accused or their Counsel of this order.”

6. On careful reading of the above order, it could be seen that the Learned Magistrate closed the said case and acquitted all the accused of all the said offences on the ground that the offences are all compoundable and the High Court directed that all the criminal cases involving petty and compoundable offences should be disposed of by the end of 31st December, 2008 and also that the District Judge had given strict oral direction to the Learned Magistrate that irrespective of duration of the pendency of the cases involving compoundable and petty offences pending as on 13.11.2008 must be disposed of without fail before 31.12.2008.

7. It is pertinent to note that no provision in Cr.PC. authorizes the District Judge to issue such oral or written directions and no provision in Cr.PC. empowers the Magistrate to dispose of the criminal cases involving compoundable offences without recording any evidence and that too in the absence of the complainant and also the accused by suo-motu advancing the case from the date fixed for recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is p