Santhosh, J.-This is an appeal filed by the Chairman of the Village Panchayat of Gola Buzuk, Taluk Alland, against the order of acquittal of the respondent passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Alland, in Criminal Case No. 11/4 of 1969. 2. A complaint was filed against the respondent-accused before the said Magistrate charging him with having committed offences under section 213(3)(a) and (b) of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959. The case was taken on file and the learned Magistrate issued summons to the accused and on 25th March. 1969 the accused appeared before the Court. Thereafter, the case underwent number of adjournments and on 2nd July, 1969, four prosecution witnesses were examined. Then the pleader for the complainant applied for the examination of the last witness and for issue of summons. The Court granted the request and adjourned the case to 2lst July, 1969. On 21st July, 1969, the case was adjourned to 2nd August, 1969 as the learned Magistrate was on casual leave. On 2nd August, 1969 the case was again adjourned to 13th August, 1969 as the learned Magistrate was on casual leave. On 13th August, 1969 the case was adjourned to 26th August, 1969, at the request made on behalf of the complainant by his advocate. 3. The order sheet dated 26th August, 1969 reads as follows: “The complainant and his counsel absent when called out. The accused is present. The complaint is dismissed and the accused is acquitted. The file be closed and consigned to record.” This order of acquittal passed apparently under section 247, Criminal Procedure Code, has been challenged by the complninant in this appeal. 4. Sri V.S. Gunjal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has contended that the learned Magistrate was not at all justified in dismissing the complaint on 26th August, 1969. He argues that the complainant was ill-with typhoid on the said date, and he had subsequently produced a medical certificate to show that he was an in-patient in the hospital and had been admitted to the hospital on 24th August, 1969 as he was suffering from typhoid. The learned Counsel has also relied on Johirilal v. Ramji Lal1. He argues that the complainant was ill-with typhoid on the said date, and he had subsequently produced a medical certificate to show that he was an in-patient in the hospital and had been admitted to the hospital on 24th August, 1969 as he was suffering from typhoid. The learned Counsel has also relied on Johirilal v. Ramji Lal1. In the said decision, it has been laid down that whenever a complainant is absent, the Magistrate must consider, and the Legislature has cast a duty on him to apply his mind to the question whether the personal attendance of the complainant is or is not necessary before he proceeds to acquit the accused under section 247, Criminal Procedure Code. It has been pointed out by Sri Gunjal that in the instant case, the complainant had already been examined in the case as P.W.1. Besides that, the complainant had examined three other witnesses. The only witness remained to be examined was the Assistant Commissioner and summons had been taken to the Assistant Commissioner to come and give evidence. Sri Gunjal has also pointed out that the Assistant Commissioner by his letter dated 23rd August, 1969 had written to the Magistrate stating that as some important criminal cases had already been fixed on 26th August, 1969 for hearing he was unable to attend the Court on 26th August, 1969 and that the learned Magistrate may be pleased to fix some other date of hearing. In these circumstances, it is argued by Sri Gunjal that the learned Magistrate has not exercised his discretion properly as per section 247, Criminal Procedure Code, and has erred in dismissing the complaint without applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore, the order of acquittal deserves to be set aside. 5. Sri Santosh Hegde, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has contended that once the complainant is absent on the date of hearing, as per the words of section 247., Criminal Procedure Code, the Court is bound to dismiss the complaint. He has relied on L.S. Patil v. Dundappa,2in support of his contention. In the abovesaid decision, their Lordships have observed that section 247, Criminal Procedure Code, requires the Magistrate to acquit the accused if the complainant does not appear on the date of hearing unless the Magistrate thinks it proper to adjourn the case to some other date. 6. He has relied on L.S. Patil v. Dundappa,2in support of his contention. In the abovesaid decision, their Lordships have observed that section 247, Criminal Procedure Code, requires the Magistrate to acquit the accused if the complainant does not appear on the date of hearing unless the Magistrate thinks it proper to adjourn the case to some other date. 6. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind whether it was necessary to adjourn the hearing of the case. He has not adverted to the letter written by the Assistant Commissioner praying for adjournment. The learned Magistrate has also not considered the question that as the complainant had already been examined as a witness, whether his presence in Court was absolutely necessary. 7. In Ranga Setty v. Kunna Setty1, Narayana Pai, J. as he then was, speaking for the Bench, while considering section 247, Criminal Procedure Code, has observed as follows: “We would, however, like to add that the discretion whether to adjourn or not under section 247, Criminal Procedure Code, has to be exercised with great care and caution. The statute itself contains the reason why such care should be exercised. In the first instance, the order is passed in the absence of a person who is vitally affected by it; secondly, the consequences of the order are serious and once that order is made, it is no longer in the power of the Magistrate to correct the mischief even if he subsequently discovers that the complainant had very good reasons for his absence. The order being one of acquittal, the complainant is prevented from taking fresh proceedings in respect of the offences complained of by him. Ordinarily, a first party in legal proceedings may be expected to be careful and not negligent of his own interest. The section no doubt uses the words ‘shall acquit’ But, that compulsion arises after the Magistrate has exercised his discretion and come to the conclusion that there are no valid grounds for adjourning the case. This further emphasises the need for exercising great caution and examining the position very carefully before Magistrates proceed to acquit the accused in private complaints under the provisions of section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 8. This further emphasises the need for exercising great caution and examining the position very carefully before Magistrates proceed to acquit the accused in private complaints under the provisions of section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 8. In the instant case, as already pointed out, the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind whether there were proper reasons to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day, as required by section 247, Criminal Procedure Code. As pointed out by the abovementioned Bench decision, the magistrate has to exercise the discretion in him and come to the conclusion that there are no valid grounds for adjourning the case, and then only, he is entitled to dismiss the complaint. We are therefore clearly of opinion that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is legally unsustainable. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. We remand the case back and direct the learned Magistrate to proceed with the case according to law expeditiously. S.V.S. ----- Acquittal set aside; matter remanded.