ORDER : The petitioner was tried on the complaint of one Bherudas s/o Narsinghdas on charges under Ss. 417 and 498, Penal Code and sentenced on conviction of both the offences to a fine of Rs. 50 and six months rigorous imprisonment in default. He has come up in revision and his learned counsel contends that the cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution was wrongly shut out and that even on the evidence as it stands, no conviction can be founded. 2. The complainant's case as stated in the complaint is that he and his wife Musammat Ganga were invited by the accused at the Nukta of his mother. There the accused prevailed on the complainant to let Ganga stay on for a week as his wife was in child-bed. The complainant went after a week to fetch Ganga but she was not there and on inquiry the accused told him that she had been sent to Dhar with one Goverdhan. Gangabai's mother lives with one Sunderlal, head Constable Police, at Dhar. Sunderlal told the complainant that the accused had left Gangabai with him for giving her away in Natra. The plea of the accused is that Gangabai returned, with her brother who had also come for the Nukta. 3. After the charge was framed the complainant was called upon to pay process for securing the attendance of his witnesses for cross-examination; and on his failure to do so, the learned Magistrate passed an order on 17-3-48 "sic". The learned Magistrate should have realised that he was by this order punishing the accused by deprivation of his right of cross-examination for the sin of the complainant. It is settled law that such a right is indefeasible, and omission to give the accused the benefit of this right vitiates the proceedings. The learned Magistrate should have realised that he was by this order punishing the accused by deprivation of his right of cross-examination for the sin of the complainant. It is settled law that such a right is indefeasible, and omission to give the accused the benefit of this right vitiates the proceedings. I would refer in this connection to cases reported in Zamunia v. Ramtahal, 27 Cal 370 : (4 CWN 469); Inder Rai v. Emperor, 37 Cal 236 : (11 Cri LJ 128); Queen Empress v. Nasarvanji, 2 Bom LR 542; Ramchandra Modak v. Emperor, 5 Pat 110 : (AIR (13) 1926 Pat 214 : 27 Cr LJ 499); Harkishen Das v. Emperor, AIR (24) 1937 All 127 : (38 Cr LJ 361); Chint Ram v. Emperor, AIR (18) 1931 Lah 186 : (32 Cr LJ 1202) and Lockley v. Emperor, 43 Mad 411 : (AIR (7) 1920 Mad 201 : 21 Cr LJ 297). In this view the learned Magistrate erred in cancelling the cross-examination and the true consequence of the cancellation is to render the evidence incomplete and the conviction must be set aside. 4. I shall, therefore, examine the evidence as it is to decide whether I should remand the case for retrial. There is no suggestion that the accused intended to cheat when he first asked the complainant to let his wife stay behind. P. W. 2 Ramdas and P. W. 3 Bhagwandas state that Gangabai is actually at Dhar with her mother, P. W. 4 Narsingdas says she lives at Dhar with her brother; P. W. 1 Govardhandas says that she went with her brother to Dhar. There is no suggestion that Gangabai is a minor and the evidence as it falls short of proof of any act on the part of the accused to detain her with intent provided for in S. 498, Penal Code, no purpose would therefore be served by ordering a retrial. I acquit the accused. The fine if paid be refunded. Accused acquitted.