( 1 ) THIS Rule was obtained against an order of the learned Mag. of Alipore acquitting tinder Section 258, Cr. P. C. , the opposite parties against whom a charge had been framed under Section 379, Penal Code, after which the learned Mag. passed the following order : "to 6-3-50 for cross-examination of P. Ws. and further P. Ws. P. Ws. to give P. R. of Rs. 10 each. Accused as before. " on 6-3-1950 neither the complainant nor the witnesses were present. No petition was filed on behalf of the complainant to explain this absence. The learned Mag. pointed out in his order of 6-6-1950, that the record of the case would show that the complainant did not take steps for summoning his witnesses for that dav. He held also that the evidence of the witnesses on the record could not be admissible under Section 33, Evidence Act, as there was nothing on the record to show that the witnesses were absent on one or other of the grounds mentioned in that section. He pointed out that the witnesses had not been tendered for cross-examination and even the lawyer for the complainant was absent and no reason had been given why they were absent, and finally he held that there being no evidenc