Judgment :- 1. The police filed a report against the respondent in this case alleging that he had committed offences under S.42 [1] and 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act, IV of 1939 The accused appeared and pleaded not guilty to the charge. On 24-9-1960 when the case stood posted for evidence the accused was acquitted under S.247, Criminal Procedure Code because the complainant and his witnesses were absent and there was no application for time. 2. The State questions the correctness of the order of acquittal and contends that as it was a case charged by the police the court should have summoned the witnesses and the order of acquittal for reason of the complainant's absence cannot be sustained. 3. Evidently the State is labouring under a misapprehension. Admittedly the offences involved are not cognizable and the case is to be tried as a summons case. S.247 enjoins that in summons cases "if the summons has been issued on complaint, and upon the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor would argue that the section is not applicable as the definition of "complaint" in the Criminal Procedure Code does not include the report of a police officer. It is too late in the day to raise such a contention. It is well settled that a report made by the police in a non-cognizable case should only be treated as a complaint-vide Sirkar v. Vasudevan Pillai XVII TLJ. 816, State v. Meera Sahib, 1956 KLT. 734, Public Prosecutor v. A.V. Ramiah, AIR. 1958 Andra Pradesh 302 and Jai Prakash v. State, AIR. 1961 Allahabad 377. 5. The Public Prosecutor does not question the correctness of this order on any other ground. The order is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Dismissed.