ORDER Gangeshwar Prasad, J. - This criminal reference arises out of a case started on a complaint filed by the Assistant Opium Officer Bareilly u/s 19 of the Opium Act. 2. After the case had been heard by a Magistrate on several dates, October 12, 1964 was fixed for further hearing. On that date the Assistant Opium Officer was not present in court and an application purporting to have been signed by him was presented to the court by the Opium Inspector Bareilly. It was stated in that application that the Assistant Opium Officer had been transferred from Bareilly and was posted at Chittaurgarh and it was, therefore, not possible for him to attend the Court on every hearing. It was also stated that the statement of the Assistant Opium Officer had already been recorded and the prayer in the application was that the personal attendance of the Assistant Opium Officer be dispensed with. The accused too made an application on that date praying that the complaint be dismissed as the complainant was absent. The learned Magistrate ordered the application presented by the Inspector Opium to be put up on the next date for orders and directed the prosecution to produce its evidence on that date, observing that the statement of the Assistant Opium Officer was no longer required to be recorded. The next date fixed in the case was 28-10-1964. Meanwhile the accused filed a revision application in the court of session and the Additional Sessions Judge III Bareilly has, after hearing the parties, made this reference recommending that the order of the Magistrate dated October 12, 1964 be set aside. 3. The ground on which the recommendation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is based is that the complainant having been absent on October 12, 1964 and no reason for dispensing with his attendance on that date having been given by the Magistrate the accused ought to have been acquitted as required by Section 247 Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. It must, however, be noted that Section 247 Code of Criminal Procedure does riot require the Magistrate to record the reason for which he does not dismiss a complaint under the provisions of that section, but thinks it proper to adjourn its hearing to some other date. 4. It must, however, be noted that Section 247 Code of Criminal Procedure does riot require the Magistrate to record the reason for which he does not dismiss a complaint under the provisions of that section, but thinks it proper to adjourn its hearing to some other date. Of course the record of the case must indicate that such a reason existed and its existence cannot be presumed from the mere fact of adjournment. But if it appears that there was in fact a reason which could have furnished a valid ground for adjournment and for refraining from dismissing the complaint for want of appearance of the complainant and that reason appears to have been accepted mere absence of a record of the reason in the order passed by the Magistrate would not vitiate it. 5. In the present case the Magistrate appears to have accepted the reason for the absence of the complainant given in the application presented by the Opium Inspector Bareilly and to have for that reason chosen to adjourn the case despite the absence of the complainant the order passed by the Magistrate cannot, therefore, be said to be bad in law and it does not, in my opinion, call for interference. 6. The reference is rejected.