JUDGMENT Bennet J. 1. This is an application in criminal revision on behalf of a complainant against the procedure adopted by a Special Magistrate of Benares, Capt. Bijaya Prasad Singh, who acquitted the accused after having framed the charge-sheet u/s 420 Indian Penal Code on the ground that the complainant and his witnesses were absent. The record shows that the charge-sheet was framed on the 7th May, 1936, and on the charge-sheet the Court noted: "Pleads not guilty: will produce defence." On the order sheet on that date, it was directed that the case be put up for further cross-examination on the 11th May, 1936, and the complainant to bring his witnesses for further cross-examination. On the 11th May, the Magistrate recorded a brief order in English on the order sheet stating: Complainant and his witnesses have not arrived though waited for more than an hour. The evidence which they had given cannot be taken into consideration unless they had given themselves for cross-examination. I therefore acquit the accused of the charge. 2. This order was passed in spite of an application having been made by the complainant to the effect that the witnesses had not yet arrived but were coming and the Court was asked to adjourn the case for 15 minutes. Apart from any legal procedure it appears to me that the Court acted quite irregularly in refusing to grant such an application and this is especially the case where the Court was the Court of a Special Magistrate where there are no fixed hours. 3. The Court further appears to me to have neglected the provisions of Section 256 (I) Criminal Procedure Code. That section lays down that when the accused has pleaded to the charge-sheet " he shall be required to state at the commencement of the next hearing of the case or if the Magistrate for reasons to be recorded in writing so thinks fit forthwith whether he wishes to cross-examine any and if so which of the witnesses for the prosecution whose evidence has been taken. If he says he does so wish the witnesses named by him shall be re-called." 4. Now the Magistrate did not record any reasons on the 7th May for asking the accused this question forthwith nor has he entered on the order sheet' or the charge-sheet that he did put this question. If he says he does so wish the witnesses named by him shall be re-called." 4. Now the Magistrate did not record any reasons on the 7th May for asking the accused this question forthwith nor has he entered on the order sheet' or the charge-sheet that he did put this question. Again on the nth May which was the next hearing after the date and shall proceed with the trial from that stage according to law.