Key Points: - The court discusses the interpretation and application of S.247 of the old Code and S.256 of the new Code, focusing on constraints and practical implications for juristic complainants. (!) - The Magistrate should not have acquitted under S.247 of the old Code on the facts of this case; the prosecution should proceed from the stage before acquittal. (!) - A complainant being a company can be represented in court by a natural person; the de jure complainant is the company, and a de facto representative must be associated. (!) (!) - The difference between appeal and revision is essential; appellate jurisdiction reviews evidence within statutory limits, while revision is supervisory and limited to legality/propriety. (!) (!) (!) - S.200 examination of the complainant on oath is mandatory; absence of the complainant on the date of hearing can lead to dismissal/acquittal only if justified under the provisions, and the court must exercise discretion judicially. (!) (!) - The decision emphasizes that a juristic complainant may be represented by others, and absence of the corporeal complainant can be accommodated by permitting another representative. (!) (!)

What is the interpretation and application of S.247 of the old Code and S.256 of the new Code when the complainant is a company or juristic person?

What are the constraints on the court in exercising the power under S.247 (old Code) / S.256 (new Code) and the practical implications for a juristic complainant?

What is the appropriate approach of appellate courts when a trial court acquits due to non-appearance of the complainant and how should proceedings proceed post-acquittal?