AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishnan, J.—In this case the prosecution had been closed and the case was posted for defence evidence. The pleader for the complainant was present and it was only the complainant that was absent on the adjourned date. The case itself was posted for an unusual hour 7 a. m. Soon after 8 o''clock, the Magistrate took up the case and finding the complainant absent, proceeded to dismiss it. He would have exercised a better discretion if he had given a short adjournment and not dismissed the case in the circumtances. The complainant turned up shortly after; but it was too late and though he had good reason for his short delay the Magistrate had no power to do anything in the case. It seems to me in such cases this Court ought to interfere to set right matters as this Court alone has power to do so. Otherwise an alleged offender escapes punishment through a sheer accident. I think in the circumstances of this case, I should set aside the acquittal and direct the further trial of the accused and I accordingly do so.
The ruling in In re Sinnu Gounden [1914] 38 Mad. 1028 proceeded mainly on the footing that the District Magistrate moved the High Court to act in revision when it was open to him to move the Government to file an appeal, which he did not do.