JUDGMENT K.N. Srivastava, J. - This is an appeal against the judgment and order passed by Sri R. P. 'aid, Special Magistrate, First Class at Orai, acquitting the respondents of the offence under section 323 I. P. C. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :- 2. The appellant filed a complaint against the respondents under sections 323, 504, 506 and 426 I.P.C. After the statements under section 200 Cr. P.C., the respondents were summoned to stand their trial under section 504,506 and 323 I.P.C. The trial started as a warrant case. After recording some evidence, the learned Magistrate framed charge against the respondents only under section 323 I.P.C. After the charge also, the trial proceeded as a warrant case. On section 6. 1965, the complaint was dismissed and the following order was passed :- 3. This is a casein which accused Mangli Shri Ram and Jagdish stand charged u/S 323 I.P.C. The prosecution has examined the witnesses but they have not been turned up for further cross-examination. Hence the statement of such witnesses cannot be taken into account. 4. The accused denied the charge made against them and pleaded not guilty and made no defence. Under the circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove its case. I, therefore, hold the accused persons not guity of the charge u/S 323 and as such I acquit each of them. Their personal and surety bonds are hereby cancelled." 5. There is no doubt that the case was tried as a warrant case even though the offence for which the respondents were charged was of a summons case. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that even in cases where the trial proceeded as a warrant case, the accused were entitled to the benefit of Section 247 Cr. P. C. if the offence for which the accused were tried was not of a summons case. In support of his above contention, the ]earned counsel for the respondents relied upon the case Venketarama lyer petitioner (complainant) v. Sundaram Pillai and others Respondents (Accused)(1) In this case, it was held that the accused were entitled to acquittal under section 247 Cr. P. C. even if the procedure of the trial was one of a warrant case. In support of his above contention, the ]earned counsel for the respondents relied upon the case Venketarama lyer petitioner (complainant) v. Sundaram Pillai and others Respondents (Accused)(1) In this case, it was held that the accused were entitled to acquittal under section 247 Cr. P. C. even if the procedure of the trial was one of a warrant case. The other case relid upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is Daulat Ram Petitioner v. Ram Kishan and others Respondents, A.I.R. 1958 Punjab 317 In this case also, the same view was expressed and A I..R. 1923 Madras case was referred. 6. As against this, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on a case of this Court Govind and other-Accused Applicant v. Emperor-Opposite Party, A.I.R. 1927 Allahabad 270 In this cue, it was held that if once the trial begun according to the provisions relating to warrant case, it was not open to the Magistrate to alter the Section and to convict the accused without framing a charge. The other case relied by the learned counsel for the appellant is Pratap Singh and another-Accused petitioner v. Govinda and another-Respondents, A.I.R. 1955 N.U.C. 498 It is a case from Rajasthan. It was held in this case that once the trial started as a warrant case, the same could not subsequently be converted into proceedings of a summons case. 7. Section 247 Cr. P. C. empowers a court to acquit the accused if on the date of the hearing, the complainant does not appear. Chapter XX of the Cr. P. C. relates to trial of summon cases by a Magistrate Sections 241 to 250 Cr. P. C. are in this Chapter. It is, therefore, obvious that Section 247 Cr. P. C. relates to the trial in summons cases. Chapter XXI of Cr. P. C. deals with the procedure which has to be adopted in trial of warrant cases. There is no provision under this Chapter for dismissal of a complaint in the absence of the complainant. Section 252 Cr. P. C. applies to cases other than the cases which are started on police report. Section 256 Cr. P. C. lays down that if the accused does not plead guilty, the witnesses named by him shall be recalled and after cross-examination and re-examination, they shall be discharged. 8. Section 252 Cr. P. C. applies to cases other than the cases which are started on police report. Section 256 Cr. P. C. lays down that if the accused does not plead guilty, the witnesses named by him shall be recalled and after cross-examination and re-examination, they shall be discharged. 8. If the witnesses who had been examined by the appellant before the Special Magistrate did not turn up for further cross-examination, the Magistrate should have issued processes for summoning them and should have exercised all powers which he had under the Code of Criminal Procedure to make the witnesses attend his court for further cross-examination. In warrant cases, it is the duty of the Magistrate to summon the prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination and re-examination if the accused makes a prayer for the same. Without issuing any processes to secure the attendance of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Special Magistrate acquitted the respondents. 9. In Govind's case (Supra), this Court held that a case once started as a warrant case could not be converted into one as a summons case. The above view of this court was also followed by Rajasthan and Madhya Bharat High Courts. In Ratan Lal Jagannaih complainant v. Haiku Deochand and another-Accused, A.I.R. 1954 Madhya Bhara t2. it was held that if the trial started with warrant case, the procedure could not be changed into one of a sum. mons case. It was also held that it was not entitled to change the procedure simply because the appellant derives the benefit under Section 247 Cr P. C. Govind's case was followed in this case. The concensus of opinion of other High Court is also in favour of the view taken by this court in Govind's case. I am of the opinion that if the trial once started as a warrant case, the same cannot sub. sequently be converted to that of a summons case. This view of mine is supported by the view expressed in Govind's case and the other cases refer. red above 10. I have shown above that Section 247 Cr. P. C. only applies to summons cases and not warrant cases and, there. fore, there was no equivalent Section in Chapter XXI of the Cr. P. C. which empowers a court to dismiss a complaint in the absence of the complainant. red above 10. I have shown above that Section 247 Cr. P. C. only applies to summons cases and not warrant cases and, there. fore, there was no equivalent Section in Chapter XXI of the Cr. P. C. which empowers a court to dismiss a complaint in the absence of the complainant. In trials under warrant cases, the accused could only be discharged under Section 253 Cr. P. C. but the discharge under section 253, Cr. P. C. would not be ordered unless all the evidence mentioned in Section 252 Cr. P. C. had been recorded. Section 252 Cr. P. C. enjoined upon the Magistrate to take all such evidence which was to he produced in support of the prosecution case. Thus even under Section 253 Cr. P. C. the learned trial court could not discharge the accused as all the evidence to be adduced by the prosecution had not been recorded. The trial court, was, therefore, obviously wrong in acquitting the accused in this case. The appeal, therefore, succeeds. 11. The appeal is allowed. The order of acquittal passed in this case is set aside. The case is remanded to the trial court for disposal in accordance with law. Let the record he sent to the A. D. M. (J), Orai for trial in accordance with law. The A. D. M. (J) may transfer the case for trial to some other MAgistrate.