( 1 ) THE State being aggrieved by pass disposal by acquitted in 96 Criminal Cases 4as preferred these appeals and contended the the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has gravely erred in doing so merely because the compliant-Factory Inspector was not present on that day especially when on all previous occasions he was personal and witnesses were also present on several dates. It is also submitted that the complaint B public servant was transferred and therefore he had sent a telegram and another person Mr. Parekh was present in the Court on that day. On behalf of the respondents learned Counsels have submitted that under Sec. 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the learned Magistrate has the jurisdiction and discretion to pass such an order and the learned Magistrate has given reasons for dismissing the complaint. Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:256 If the summons has been issued on complaint and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned the complainant does not appear the Magistrate shall notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained acquit the accused unless for some reason he thinks. It proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day; provided that where the complainant is represented by a Pleader or by the Office conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case. (2) The provisions of sub-sec. (1) shall so far as may be apply also to case where the non-appearance of the complainant is due to his death.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsels for the respondents have submitted that the language of Sec. 256 (1) makes it clear that if the complainant does not appear the Magistrate shall notwithstanding anything before contained shall acquit the accused unless for some reasons be thinks it appear to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day. The record of this case shows that there were clearly 42 dates almost on all occasions. the complainant was present. Rarely the complainant was absent or adjournment was sought. It is seen from the rojnama to on many occasions the witnesses summons were served and the witness were present and yet the matters have been adjourned because of: (I) strike of lawyers; (ii) adjournment sought by the accused and (iii) Court being busy with other cases. About four times because of the absence of the accused warrants had to be issued. On the day previous to the dismissal of the complaint the complainant was present and the Advocate for the accused had prayed for adjournment and therefore the Court had directed payment of Rs. 250. 00 towards the costs of the witnesses. having regard to this State of record it appears that the learned Magistrate was unaware of his duty to see that the cases are not disposed for just for the sake of disposal and for the sake of statistics. This is not a case where the complainant has repeatedly sought adjournments for delaying the proceedings. It is true that the criminal cases were filed in the year 1985 and this order of dismissal was passed in the year 1987 but the delay was not at all due to the complainant. In fact the complainant and his witnesses have remained present on so many occasions and due to various reasons as stated above the matter could not be taken up. In these circumstances it on one occasion the complainant who is a public servant was not present the Court ought to have in exercise of sound judicial discretion adjourned the hearing. If this power is not exercised in such cases then this power can rarely be exercised in other cases.

( 3 ) IN the grounds of appeal it is mentioned that another officer Mr. Parekh was present on that day. But there is nothing on record to show that he seas present. But there is no dispute that the complainant was not present on that d