The right to be heard in a criminal trial includes the right to advance arguments, and this right applies to the complainant as well as the accused. The failure of the trial court to give an opportunity to the complainant to advance arguments results in a failure of justice and vitiates the order of acquittal.

( 1 ) THIS Rule is at the instance of the de facto complainant and is against an order dated the 31st May 1960 passed by Shri S. L. Roy, Magistrate, First Class, Howrah, acquitting the accused opposite parties, who are 4 in number, under Sections 427, 447 and 323, I. P. C.

( 2 ) BEREFT of all verbiage, the prosecution case inter alia is that Shri Sunil Kumar Ghosh (P. W. 1) is a partner of Das Ghosh and Co. having amongst others a shop or a 'gola' of building materials at 127, Netaji Subhas Road, Howrah. On the 26th July, 1964 at about 8. 15 A. M. when the said P. W. 1 was working in this shop, the accused opposite parties came in a body and started breaking down the northern, fencing thereof. They threatened to assault the complainant when the latter protested and came upon the land of the gola, forcing the complainant thereby to run away in fear. P. W. 1 proceeded to the police-station where he lodged a F. I. R. (Ext. 1) over the said incident which was witnessed by P. Ws, 2, 3 and 4 while P. Ws. 5 and 6 reached the place of incident thereafter to witness the damaged fencing. P. W. 11 was deputed by P. W. 9, who recorded the F. I. R. , to investigate the case and the said P. W. 11 visited the place of incident on the same date and seized under a search list (Ext. 2) some broken bamboos etc. in the presence of P. W. 10. It is further stated that prior to the incident mentioned above, at about 7 A. M. on the same date P. W. 8, Assistant Sub-Inspector, served a notice tinder Section 144, Cr. P. C. upon the accused persons on the complaint of P. W. 1. The accused opposite parties were ultimately placed on trial before Shri S. K. Mukherji, Magistrate, First Class, Howrah, to answer charges under Sections 427, 447 and 323, I. P. C.

( 3 ) THE defence case in short is that the accused persons are not guilty and that this is a false case, engineered by P. W. 1, to implicate the said accused persons under Section 188, I. P. C.

( 4 ) 12 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the offences charged while the defence examined one witness. The case has had a chequered career. Shri S. K. Mukherji, Magistrate. First Class, Howrah recorded the evidence and heard the arguments on the 22nd July. 1965. Thereafter the judgment was deferred on one ground or other. On 13-8-1965 the learned trying Magistrate was on leave and on 27-8-05; 25-9-65, 25-10-05 and 30-10-05 the learned Magistrate could not deliver the judgment as it was not ready. Thereafter Shri S. K. Mukherji, the learned trying Magistrate retired and there were adjournments on 15-11-65, 16-12-65 and 17-1-66 as no successor had joined. Shri S. L. Roy, the present incumbent, joined thereafter and on 22-2-66 he ordered that 29-3-66 be fixed for judgment. On 29-3-66 and 27-4-68 the case was again adjourned and the judgment could not be delivered and ultimately on 31-5-66, which was the next date fixed for judgment, Shri S. L. Roy, Magistrate, First Class, Howrah, delivered the judgment, which has been impugned in the present revisional application, acquitting all the accused persons of the respective charges.

( 5 ) MR. Dilip Kumar Dutta, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the complainant petitioner, has pressed the Rule only on one ground as mentioned below. In view thereof and in view of the findings I am going to arrive at, it is not necessary to enter into the merits and traverse the evidence on record. Mr. Dutta has urged that the learned trying Magistrate, namely the present incumbent, has followed a procedure not known to law by not giving the parties an opportunity to advance arguments before the delivery of the judgment, vitiating the same thereby. In this connection he has contended that there has not been a fair or proper trial and the resultant order of acquittal is not sustainablc in law. Mr. Shib Sankar Sarkar, Advocate, appearing with Mr. Ahindra Kumar Adhya, Advocate, contended in the first instance that the objection raised by Mr.