This revision is directed against the order dated 16-7-1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mirzapur allowing the revision setting aside the order dated 12-1-99 by which the com plaint was dismissed under Section 256, Cr. P. C and directing the Magistrate to decide the case in accordance with law.

2. The learned C. J. M. held that the counsel for the complainant had come but he had not filed any application for ad journment. None responded from the side of the complainant when the case was called at 3. 00 p. m. The learned Magistrate observed that no reason for non ap pearance of the complainant has been as signed nor any witness was present. There fore, the complaint was liable to be dis missed under Section 256, Cr. P. C,

3. The revisional Court held that the Magistrate had reserve of discretion but he had dismissed the complaint without any reason whether discretion should be exer cised in favour of the accused dismissing the complaint. He also considered that mere non- appearance of the complainant on only one day was not sufficient reason for dismissing the complaint; more so when the complainant was regularly ap pearing and the accused was adopting dilatory tac