A.I.S. Cheema, J.

This appeal against acquittal has been filed by original complainant. Respondent Nos.2 to 10 (hereinafter referred to as accused) were arrayed as accused No.1 to 9 respectively in S.T.C. No.582/2009 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ghansawangi, District Jalna. The complaint was dismissed for want of taking steps by the complainant on 11.1.2012 and hence this appeal.

2. It is the case of the complainant that he has filed civil dispute against accused No.1 Bakulabai. It is argued that, the complainant claims to be adopted son of accused No.1 Bakulabai, aged about 70 years. The case of complainant is that, he has filed suit against accused No.1 and while the suit was pending, accused No.1 sold the disputed land to accused Nos.3 to 6. The concerned land had various fruit bearing trees and the purchasers cut down the trees since 13.4.2007 and on 13.5.2007, burnt off the cattle fodder depot in the field. Accused No.2 purchased the wood after trees were cut. The complainant filed complaint to police station as also before the Collector and Superintendent of Police. However, the authorities did not take any cognizance and so the private complaint came to be filed.

3. The copy of complaint shows that, accused No.7 is Tahsildar, accused No.8 was Circle Officer and accused No.9 is Talathi of the area concerned. According to the complaint, complainant took up dispute with the accused No.7 to 9 and Collector, Superintendent of Police, Forest officers, but they did not take any "effective" steps and police patil only did panchanama. Thus, accused Nos.7 to 9 were made accused.

4. The appellant – complainant claims that summons were issued to the accused persons and matter was for awaiting summons on 12.7.2011 and 27.9.2011 and for steps on 30.11.2011. Trial Court dismissed the complaint on 11.1.2012 for want of prosecution, observing that complainant was absent many times and the accused came to be acquitted.

5. It is argued on behalf of the complainant by the learned counsel that the trial Court should not have dismissed the complaint. According to the learned counsel, the complaint was for awaiting report of service of summons to accused Nos.2 and 8 and was then fixed for steps. According to the counsel, if the report of summons sent earlier had not come back, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class did not indicate as to what steps complainant should take and thus, according to him, the complaint should not have been dismissed only because the complainant and his Advocate were absent when it was kept for taking steps.

6. Against this, the learned counsel for respondents accused submitted that, the matter was a summary case, which was pending since 5.6.2007 and even in 2012, service of the accused had not been completed. Some of the accused served were attending Court since long. Accused No.2 had been arrayed as accused claiming that he was the purchaser of the wood of the trees cut and accused No.8 was Circle Officer. Even regarding accused No.8, who was Circle officer, service was not completed and other accused were being put to trouble. According to the counsel, the impugned order was correctly passed.

7. Copy of roznama available shows that, the complaint was filed on 5.6.2007. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class called report under Section 202 and summons were issued on 28.7.2009. In between, the matter was fixed on various dates. After the summons were issued on 28.7.2009, the service was got completed on other accused except accused No.2 Yusufbhai and accused No.8 Gopichand. The other accused were attending the proceedings. On 3.5.2011, summons was directed to be re-issued. It was actually issued on 12.5.2011 and was returnable on 12.7.2011. Thus, a time of two months was prescribed for return of summons. When the matter came up on 12.7.2011, the complainant was absent. The return of summons was awaited and matter was posted after more than another two months for 27.9.2011. On 27.9.2011, the complaina