1. This appeal under Sec. 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) by the State Government is directed against an order of acquittal under Sec.247 of the Code passed by the Munsif Magistrate of Hazaribagh on the 17th May,1967.

2. It appears that the Superintendent of Labour, Hazaribagh, after receiving authority in this behalf from the State of Bihar filed a complaint against the respondents under Sec.27 of the Industrial Disputes Act for an offence under Sec. 24 read with Sec.23-B of the same Act. The prosecution case was that while an Industrial dispute between the workmen and the management of Indo Shahi Glass Company Ltd. was pending adjudication before tile Industrial Tribunal, the respondents had instigated the workmen and organised and participated in an illegal strike. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was transferred to Mr. R. K. Sinha, Magistrate on the 12th October, 1965. Processes were issued and service return was awaited. The case was transferred to a Munsif Magistrate thereafter. After a few dates, the service reports of the summonses issued were received. They were served on two respondents only. They also did not appear. Bailable warrants of arrests were therefore, issued against all. The reports of such warrants were not received. Non-bailable warrants were then issued but there was no execution report even in respect of them. The case thus was adjourned from day to day awaiting the execution report of warrants of arrest until the 17th January, 1967 when it was transferred to another Munsif Magistrate, Sri S. D. Sharma. The learned Munsif Magistrate also issued fresh non-bailable warrants of arrest and directed processes under Sections 87 and 88 of the Code to be issued and fixed the 27th February, 1967 for appearance of the accused. On that date the accused were again absent and the execution report of the warrants and the service report of the processes aforesaid were not received. The Presiding Officer was on casual leave, and some other Magistrate acting for him directed reminder to be sent for the service reports and fixed the 5th April, 1967 for appearance of the accused. On the last date again the accused were absent and the service reports had not been received. Again an order was passed by the learned Munsif Magistrate to send an urgent reminder for the same and he fixed 17th May, 1967 for appearance of the accused. On that date again the accused were absent and the service report had not been received. The order-sheet, however shows, that the complainant also was absent on that date and no pairvi was made on his behalf. For these two reasons he acquitted the accused under Sec.247 of the Code. Hence this appeal.

3. There is no dispute with regard to the two important facts viz. that the accused were absent and the execution report of the warrants had not been received and secondly that the complainant was also absent on that date. The argument in this case, rested mainly on the question of law, which is that the learned Magistrate had acted improperly and illegally in acquitting the respondents without having applied his mind to the questions whether the case should have been adjouned and whether the personal attendance of the complainant, who in this case was a public servant should have been dispensed with in the circumstances of the case. It is urged in this connection that it is quite obvious from the fact that the accused persons had not appeared for nearly two years and that the Court was awaiting the service report of the non-bailable warrants of arrest issued against them that the presence of the complainant on the 17th May, 1967 was unnecessary because the case could not have proceeded in the absence of the accused and in the absence of the service report. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents have urged that irrespective of the question as to whether the presence of the complainant was necessary or not and irrespective of