JUDGMENT B.B. Misra, J. - This is an appeal against the order of the Additional S.D. M. Sadar Muzaffarnagar dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant in default under Section 247 Cr.P.C. 2. It appears that June 7, 1966 was the date fixed for the hearing of the case. On that date the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board who had filed the complaint did not appear at 12.10 noon and also at 12.35 noon when a Draftsman of the Municipal Board who had taken time to call the Executive Officer could not call the Executive Officer. Till then the personal attendance of the Executive Officer had not been exempted though there was an application to that effect. 3. On behalf of the appellant it was urged that the complaint should not have been dismissed because no orders had been passed on the application for exemption from personal attendance. Under Section 247 Cr.P.C. it is necessary that the complainant should be present on the date of of hearing unless his presence has been exempted. In the present case though an application for exemption from personal attendance had been made but no orders had been passed on that application. That being so, it was incumbent on the Executive Officer to have been present. It was next urged that the court should have waited till 4 p.m. For that contention reliance was placed on Ram Narain v. Mool Chand and others, 1960 ALJ 312. The facts of that case were different. In the present case sufficient opportunity had been given to the Executive Officer to come to court. Though the court starts working at 10.30 a.m. the case was not taken up till 12.10 p.m. Then again a Draftsman of the Municipal Board appeared and undertook to call the Executive Officer. The Magistrate again waited till 12.35 p.m. The Executive Officer did not turn up. Under these circumstances it was not necessary for the court to have waited for the Executive Officer till 4 p.m. It would thus appear that there is no force in any of the grounds raised on behalf of the appellant. 4. The appeal is dismissed.