JUDGMENT : A. Misra, J. - In this revision, complainant is the Plaintiff. 2. The facts in brief, are that on complaint filed by the Plaintiff, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused-opposite party u/s 292-A, Indian Penal Code on 3.10.1966. After undergoing a number of adjournments, the case stood posted to 24-3-1967 without any indication as to the purpose for which it was posted to that date. On 14-3-1957, complainant was present, accused was present and a petition for time was filed by the Advocate for the former. The S.D.M. being absent on leave, time was allowed to 13-4-1967. On 13-4-1967, Advocates for both Bides were present and Advocate for the complainant filed an application for time alleging that the complainant was absent due to some unavoidable reasons. Advocate for the accused pressed for dismissal of the complaint. An order was passed on that day posting the matter to 25.4-1967 for orders on the point which obviously means on the question as to whether the complaint petition is to be dismissed due to absence of the complainant. On 25-4-1967, Advocates on both sides as well as the complainant and accused were present, arguments about the applicability of Section 247, Code of Criminal Procedure was beard and orders passed on 29-4.1967 acquitting the accused u/s 247, Code of Criminal Procedure for the absence of the complainant on 13-4-1967. The Plaintiff challenges the legality of this order. 3. The only point urged by learned Counsel for Plaintiff is that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to acquit the accused u/s 247, Code of Criminal Procedure for absence of the complainant on 13.4.1967 and that too, by an order passed on a subsequent date when both parties were present at the time the matter was heard. 4. Section 247, Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a Magistrate to acquit an accused if summons bad been issued on a complaint and on the date appointed for the appearance of the accused or on any day subsequent thereto-to which the bearing may be adjourned the complainant does not appear. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate to act u/s 247, Code of Criminal Procedure arises only in two contingences, Firstly, if the complainant does not appear on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused and secondly, if he does not appear on any day subsequent thereto to which the bearing may be adjourned. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate to act u/s 247, Code of Criminal Procedure arises only in two contingences, Firstly, if the complainant does not appear on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused and secondly, if he does not appear on any day subsequent thereto to which the bearing may be adjourned. obviously, 13.4.1967 was not a date appointed for the appearance of the accused. The order also does not show that the case was posted for bearing to that date. The learned Magistrate purports to assume jurisdiction to act u/s 247, Code of Criminal Procedure by interpreting the word "hearing" occurring in the section to mean a stage after the appearance of the accused when the Court bad to take some action or other for disposal of the case. Adopting this interpretation, he further speculates that on that particular date, i.e., 13-4-1967, further steps could have been taken but for the absence of the complainant. He does not say what further steps could have been taken by him. This view of the learned Magistrate is patently erroneous. In a decision of this Court reported in Brundaban Bastia Vs. Birabar Bastia, while construing the said provision, it was observed: It is reasonable to interpret the word "hearing" occurring in Section 247, Code of Criminal Procedure in the light of the meaning given to the word "hear" occurring in Sub-section (1) of Section 244, Code of Criminal Procedure. The word in the context could apply only when the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses is being taken by the Court or when an adjournment is granted for that purpose. The order of the learned Magistrate itself shows that 13-4-1967 was not a date when the complainant's witnesses were being examined, nor as it a date fixed for that purpose. On the unchallenged facts, therefore, it is clear that the order of acquittal passed u/s 247, Code of Criminal Procedure on a date fixed neither for the appearance of the accused nor for hearing of the case would be one without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 5. In the result, the revision is allowed, the order of the learned Magistrate passed u/s 247, Code of Criminal Procedure is quashed and the case is remanded for disposal according to law. Final Result : Allowed