The High Court can examine the legality, propriety, and correctness of a non-speaking order of dismissal of complaint in its revisional jurisdiction. The appeal against the order of acquittal is limited to cognizable and non-bailable offences.

B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. In all these three Revision Applications two common questions of law are involved. The questions are whether any order of dismissal of complaint under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (briefly "Cr.P.C.") is appealable and secondly, what other recourse of law are available to the complainant in such a situation.

2. All the aforesaid three Revision Applications have been filed by the Complainant against the orders dated 14-1-08 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shillong in Complaint Case No. 644/645/649(S) of 2008, dismissing the complaints and acquitting the accused persons for non-production of witnesses. Being aggrieved with the orders passed in the aforesaid Complaint Cases, the Complainant i.e. Cantonment Board has filed these Revision Applications, seeking restoration of the complaint cases. Since the impugned orders are identical in nature and common questions of law are involved the revision applications filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 397 401 and 482 of Cr.P.C. are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Heard Shri S.R. Sen, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. The respondents were represented by Smt. T. Yangi, Mr. M.F. Qureshi and Mr. R. Chaudhury, learned advocates respectively.

4. The complaints were filed by the Cantonment Board through its Estate Officer under Section 184of the Cantonments Act, 1924 alleging illegal constructions on the land belonging to the Cantonment Board without due permission. Since the Offences were triable under summons procedure, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Chapter XX of Cr.P.C. and proceeded with the cases by way of explaining the substance of accusations to the accused persons Under Section 251. Since the accused persons declined to plead guilty the Court fixed the case for production of witnesses and adducing evidence by the complainant. Despite adjourning the cases on several dates, the complainant failed to proffer its evidence. Having failed to get evidence from the prosecution, the learned Judicial Magistrate finally dismissed the cases by passing impugned orders, purportedly under Section 256 of Cr.P.C.

5. Shri S.R. Sen, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that in all the cases attendance was given by way of filing 'Hazira', and as such, the cases could not have been dismissed for default. On the question of maintainability of the revision applications, the learned Counsel contended that since the impugned orders are not speaking judgments, its legality, propriety can be examined under revisional jurisdiction.

6. Per contra, Shri M.F. Qureshi, learned Counsel for the respondents in one of the cases, submitted that the result of dismissal of complaint is acquittal of the accused persons and the order of the acquittal can be challenged only by way of filing an appeal Under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. The learned Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court given in the case of Krishna Kumar Gupta v. Mohammed Jaros 2003 Cri LJ 149 and the judgment rendered by the Bombay High Court in the case of Om Gayatri and Co. v. State of Maharastra reported in 2006 Cri LJ 601. At this initial stage of the judgment I make it clear that the complaints were filed Under Section 184 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 which provides punishment of imposing fine of Rs. 5000/-. Hence, the offences are non-cognizable and bailable one. The same offence has been brought under the new enactment, The Cantonments Act, 2006 with the same nature of punishment.

7. To resolve the legal controversy, it is also necessary to reproduce Section 256 of Cr.P.C. and relevant provisions of appeal under Section 378 for ready reference. The provisions are as below :

256. Non-appearance or death of complainant -- (1) 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