ORDER S.D. Singh, J. - This is an application in revision against an order passed by a Special Magistrate in district Muzaffarnagar on 4-6-1966. 2. A complaint case was pending against the Applicants in the court of Sri P.S. Agarwal, Special Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, Under Sections 323 and 448 of the IPC. 28-5-1966, was fixed for evidence but on that date an application was moved on behalf of the complainant that he was in jail and was not able to do pairvi in his case. He further mentioned in the application that the case is a summons case which, if dismissed once, may not be reinstituted afresh. He, therefore, desired that the record may be consigned to record room and that he would proceed with the case on being released from jail. The prayer was obviously made u/s 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but that provision is not applicable to a complaint case. Unmindful of the provisions of the law the Magistrate passed the following order: The complainant is unable to attend the court due to unavoidable circumstances. The case is consigned to record room and the accused are released. 3. This order was passed on 28-5-1966. On 4-6-1966, i.e., only about a week later another application was moved by the complainant that he had been released from jail and that the record may be recalled from the record room and may be proceeded with and the Magistrate then passed the following order: perused order dated 28-5-1966 on paper No. 15. Let the accused be summoned for 18-6-1966 and the case be entered afresh. 4. It is this order by which the Applicants feel aggrieved. They moved an application in revision before the Additional District Magistrate (J) who having considered the entire position came to the conclusion that the order which was passed by Sri Agarwal on 28-5-1966, could only be treated as an order adjourning the case and that he had jurisdiction to proceed with the case on the complainant informing him that he was in a position to proceed with his complaint now. 5. The position that the order which was passed on 28th May could not be an order u/s 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is absolutely clear. That section applies only to a case instituted otherwise than upon a complaint. 5. The position that the order which was passed on 28th May could not be an order u/s 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is absolutely clear. That section applies only to a case instituted otherwise than upon a complaint. The contention of the Applicants was that that being the position in law, the order which was passed by the Magistrate could be deemed to be an order u/s 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure meaning thereby that the Applicants should be deemed to have been acquitted by the Magistrate, but it is not possible to accept this contention. u/s 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate has jurisdiction to acquit the accused if the complainant does not appear on a date which is fixed for hearing, but he is not bound to do so. That very section contemplates that the Magistrate shall acquit the accused "unless for some reason he thinks proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to so no other date". Thus merely because a complainant is absent the Magistrate is not bound to acquit the accused. He may do so or he may for some reason, which he thinks proper, adjourn the hearing of the case to some other date. The only impropriety which was committed by the Magistrate in this case was that instead of adjourning the case to some other date, he directed the record to be consigned to the record room which means adjourning the hearing if the case, but allowed it to remain Without a date. But merely because of this impropriety on the part of the Magistrate the order passed by him cannot be interpreted to mean that whit he intended to do was to acquit the accused, nor can the acquittal of the accused be implied when the Magistrate passed an order of that nature. But merely because of this impropriety on the part of the Magistrate the order passed by him cannot be interpreted to mean that whit he intended to do was to acquit the accused, nor can the acquittal of the accused be implied when the Magistrate passed an order of that nature. The order was certainly one which was not warranted by any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure and if the Applicants had moved this Court in revision against the order passed on 28-5-1966 that order might have been set aside at that stage and the Magistrate directed either to acquit the accused or to fix a date for the hearing of the case, but that not having been done and the Magistrate having already recalled the record and fixed a date for the hearing of the case, needful has been done by him and no interference is consequently called for in revision. 6. The application in revision is dismissed. The record of the case will be returned as early as possible and the Magistrate directed to proceed with the case with all possible speed as the case has already been delayed sufficiently long.