JUDGMENT : TUDBALL, J. 1. The facts out of which this application in revision has arisen are as follows :—Certain proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were held in the court of the Collector of Benares and a dispute arose before him, between two persons, of whom the present applicant is one, as to which of the two was entitled to the amount awarded as compensation by the Collector. The latter official made a reference under section 30 of the Act to the court of the District Judge. Fixing a date for the hearing of the reference, the District Judge issued notice to the present applicant to appear on the date in person and warning him that if he did not so appear, the reference would be heard ex parte in his absence. The notice apparently was served on the applicant's son, who handed it to his father some three or four days before the date fixed. It was written in Arabic character. On the date fixed the applicant failed to appear in person, but he appeared by a pleader and a mukhtar. The learned District Judge informed the pleader and the mukhtar that if the applicant did not appear in person, a warrant would be issued for his arrest and he gave them time to produce their client. 2. The applicant appeared on the date at 1-25 P.M. His explanation was that he could not read the Arabic character, that he had no idea that his personal attendance was required and that if he had known, he would have appeared in person. In spite of this explanation the District Judge ordered the prosecution of the applicant for an offence under section 174, Penal Code, 1860. It is quite clear that the offence contemplated by the latter section is an intentional omission to attend at a place or time at which the accused is bound to attend. The matter before the court was one in which personal attendance is not usually enforced without special reason. The notice issued to the applicant merely stated to him that the result of his failing to appear in person would be that the matter would be heard ex parte. The applicant was really in the position of a party to a suit and liable at the utmost to suffer the results of non-attendance by a party. The notice issued to the applicant merely stated to him that the result of his failing to appear in person would be that the matter would be heard ex parte. The applicant was really in the position of a party to a suit and liable at the utmost to suffer the results of non-attendance by a party. Moreover, the District Judge gave the applicant a locus penitential, and directly he was sent for, he at once attended the court. The case is clearly one in which an offence under section 174, Penal Code, 1860, has not been committed, and the complaint made by the lower court is one, which should never have been made. In so directing the prosecution of the applicant for an offence, which clearly on the facts before the court has not been committed, the lower court has in my opinion committed a material irregularity. I therefore set aside the lower court's order and quash the proceedings. I make no order as to costs.