( 1 ) THE question that arises in this revision petition is whether the order of discharge passed by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Bangalore under S. 253 (2) Crpc. is in accordance with law. ( 2 ) ONE Shyamu filed the complaint in the Court of the Additional first Class Magistrate, Bangalore, against five persons, alleging that they had committed an offence punishable under S. 406 IPC. The case was registered against Bhoopalam K. Rajasekhar, Bhoopalam K. Prasanna kumar and Bhoopalam K. Chandra Mohan (A-1 to A-3), who are respondents herein, and the complaint against the other two persons was dismissed. ( 3 ) THE complainant examined 8 witnesses on his behalf. From the records it is seen that the complainant has taken considerable time to examine these 8 witnesses. On 27-11-1970 the complainant requested the court to issue non-bailable warrant to one Chidambaram Chettiar for being secured for the purpose of examining him as his witness. On that day A-l was absent when the case was called, but he appeared in Court later. By that time the case had been adjourned to 14-12-70 for the appearance of a-1 and for evidence. Again on 10-12-70 the complainant filed a memo for issue of warrant to certain witnesses named therein returnable by 14-12-70. The warrant was not issued as the Magistrate felt that there was no sufficient time for the execution of the warrant. On 14-12-70 the complainant and his Counsel were absent when the case was called on the early part of the day and also on the later part of the day. The learned Magistrate, therefore, passed the following order:"even then neither the complainant nor his witnesses or his counsel were present for the purpose of evidence in the case. Since the case is very old one and since the complainant has received adequate chances at the hands of the Court and since the parties remained absent, the case for the complainant was closed due to the absence of the complainant or his witnesses without any reasonable ground. "in this view, he discharged the accused under sub-sec. (2) of S. 253 Crpc. on the following day, i. e. , on 15-12-1970. ( 4 ) SUB-SEC. (2) of S. 253 Crpc. "in this view, he discharged the accused under sub-sec. (2) of S. 253 Crpc. on the following day, i. e. , on 15-12-1970. ( 4 ) SUB-SEC. (2) of S. 253 Crpc. provides that nothing in that section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless. Under this sub-section when a Magistrate is reasonably convinced on what has already been deposed that a criminal charge cannot be sustained, this sub-section relieves the Magistrate from the necessity to go on with the trial. The Court has two alternatives: It may take all the evidence and then decide as prescribed by clause (1 ). But if it finds that the case is so transparently false or undisputedly beyond the jurisdiction of the criminal Courts that it would not act upon the complaint, even if the prosecution evidence were recorded, he is competent under clause (2) to discharge the accused without hearing the evidence. But where a complaint prima facie discloses an offence, a Magistrate cannot hold the charge to be groundless, unless he knows what is the sort of evidence that is going to be adduced to prove it. There is nothing to prevent the Magistrate from closing the case and discharging the accused if he finds that the evidence on behalf of the complainant read along with the complaint against the accused is groundless. He could do so only on recording the evidence of some witnesses or even on examination of the complainant. The sub-section does not completely do away with the necessity of examining some witnesses or hearing of the complainant before an order of discharge is made. ( 5 ) IN a warrant case, as in this case, in which the accused is tried for an offence which is non-compoundable, the Magistrate cannot discharge the accused under S. 253 (2) Crpc. on the ground that the complainant is absent and there is no sufficient material on record lor calling and examining the witnesses named in the complaint. ( 5 ) IN a warrant case, as in this case, in which the accused is tried for an offence which is non-compoundable, the Magistrate cannot discharge the accused under S. 253 (2) Crpc. on the ground that the complainant is absent and there is no sufficient material on record lor calling and examining the witnesses named in the complaint. ( 6 ) FROM the order or discharge, it could be gathered that on four grounds the Magistrate has discharege a the accused, namely, (1) tnat the complainant ana his Counsel were absent on the day fixed lor hearing; (2) that the memo given by the complainant tor issue of non-bailable warrants to his witnesses was and theretore the warrant could not be served within the date fixed lor nearing; (3) that the complainant had been given a number of chances by the Court and (4) that the evidence of witnesses examined read along with the complaint did not make out a case, in a warrant case, the principle is tnat the Magistrate cannot close the case because of the aosence of the complainant or because he had been given a number of chances to examine his witnesses. If the law is set in motion, a duty is cast upon the Court to get all the witnesses named by the complainant, if possible, and examine them and therealter it could come to a conclusion one way or the other. In the instant case, the complainant sought the help of the Court to get his witnesses by issue ol non-bailable warrants for examining them about four days earner to the date of hearing. It is not clear from the records whether these witnesses could not have been served within the date of hearing. But any way, the warrants were not issued and the reason given by the Magistrate was want of sufficient time for execution of the warrants. ( 7 ) IT may be that the Complainant is a recalcitrant person not helpful to the Court. But one thing is certain that he had given the list of witnesses to be examined by the Court. Therefore it became the duty of the Court either to summon the witnessses or get them by issue of non-bailable warrants and to see that all the material was placed on record to come to one or the other conclusion. But one thing is certain that he had given the list of witnesses to be examined by the Court. Therefore it became the duty of the Court either to summon the witnessses or get them by issue of non-bailable warrants and to see that all the material was placed on record to come to one or the other conclusion. In this case, the learned Magistrate has considered the evidence of 8 witnesses and has come to the conclusion that the charge against the accused persons is groundless. But the complainant had not closed his case and in tact he wanted some more witnesses to be examined by issue of non-bailable warrants. In these circumstances, the magistrate was not justified in closing the case and passing the order of discharge. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, it is seen from the records that the case has been pending since a very long time. It may be due to the recalicitrant attitude of the complainant that the case is pending for such a long time. Viewed from that angle, undoubtedly, the complainant has caused harassment to the accused. But nevertheless, the law has to be followed strictly. ( 9 ) MR. Raikar, the learned Counsel for the complainant, submits that he would examine only three witnesses including the complainant forthwith, by which time he would furnish the processes to the Court to get the other two witnesses either by issue of summons or by issue of non-bailable warrants. I hope the complainant and his Counsel would help the Court m disposing of this case expeditiously. ( 10 ) IN the result, the order of discharge is set aside and the Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case and dispose of the same expeditiously giving opportunities to both sides. --- *** --- .