ORDER

M.H. Beg, J. - The Appellant, Town Area Committee, Gopiganj, prosecuted the Respondents for an alleged offence u/s 185 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. The complainant's evidence was completed on 21st August, 1963 and the case was adjourned to 6th of September, 1963 for the evidence of the accused Respondents. On that date the learned Magistrate trying the case passed the following order:

Complainant is absent. Complaint is dismissed in default and the accused discharged.

Against this order, the complainant has come up before me after obtaining special leave to appeal u/s 417 (3) Code of Criminal Procedure. The order purports to be an order of "discharge" which was not the correct term to use for an order which can be passed u/s 247 Code of Criminal Procedure in a summon's case trial. This was a summons case trial and no charge is framed in such cases. Nevertheless, the learned Magistrate used the word 'discharge.' Such an order has to be interpreted as an order of acquittal u/s 247 Code of Criminal Procedure. Interpreting (it; as an order of acquittal, I hold that an appeal after obtaining special leave to file appeal lies to this Court.

2. A perusal o the order sheet indicates t