RANGE GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the order dt. 12-5-1971 passed by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Chikmagalur, in CC. No. 239 of 1971 acquitting the lour respondents who were accused 1 to 4 before him and who will also be referred to as such in the course of this judgment, of the offence for contravening the provisions of clause (1) of Rule 154 of Mysore forest Rules, 1969, read with S. 86 of the Mysore Forest Act. ( 2 ) THE charge sheet in the case was filed on 10-2-1971 and on the same day the case was taken on file and summonses were issued to all the accused returnable on 27-2-1971. On 27-2-1971 only accused-4 appeared and so fresh summons were issued to accused 1 to 3 returnable on 19-3- 1971. On 19-3-1971, in response to the summons, accused 1 to 3 appeared and the case was then adjourned to 22-4-1971 on which day the complainant and the accused were all present. But, as the Presiding Officer was on casual leave, the case was adjourned to 12-5-1971. On that day, it appears, the complainant and his witnesses and also the accused were all absent, and the learned Magistrate purporting to act under S. 247, crpc. acquitted the accused of the said offence, and it is the legality and the correctness of that order that are assailed in this appeal. The respondents-accused though served with notice of his appeal, have remained absent. ( 3 ) IT was contended by the learned State Public Prosecutor that the learned Magistrate did not exercise proper discretion but acted mechanically while passing the impugned order. Elaborating his contention he submitted that the accused were all absent on the day the impugned order was passed and the learned Magistrate could not have proceeded with the hearing of the case even if the complainant and his witnesses were present and that in these circumstance he should not have proceeded to pass the impugned order without adjourning the case He further submitted that the consequences that would flow from such an order would be grave and would seriously affect the interests of the complainant and that the learned Magistrate without realising the same and without any valid grounds for not adjourning the case was not justified in passing the impugned order in such haste. The learned State Public Prosecutor also drew our attention to the following observations of this Court in Rangasetty v. Kunna setty, 1900 Mys. L. J. 1033, 1034:"we would however like to add that the discretion whether to adjourn or not under S. 247 of the Crlpc 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 vitallv 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 disovers 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 offence complained of bv 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 S. 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. " ( 4 ) IN our opinion, the submissions of the learned State Public Prosecutor are well founded. It is seen from the order sheet of the case that accused 1 to 3 appeared in Court for the first time only on 19-3-1971 and on 22-4-1971 the Presiding Officer himself was on leave. On all the previous days the complainant was present and the order-sheet does not disclose that the case was set down for hearing on 12-5-1971. The order sheet relating to that date also does not show that the complainant was negligent in the prosecution of the case. The impugned order does not contain the reason or reasons which prompted the learned Magistrate to pass it without adjourning the case to some other date even though the complainant was absent on that day. No grounds, much less any good grounds, are given for not adjourning the case. The impugned order does not contain the reason or reasons which prompted the learned Magistrate to pass it without adjourning the case to some other date even though the complainant was absent on that day. No grounds, much less any good grounds, are given for not adjourning the case. It is therefore clear that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind at all to the question whether the case should or should not be adjourned, and he has acted mechanically while passing the impugned order. ( 5 ) IN a proper case, for good reasons, the case can be adjourned even though the complainant is absent and if there are good reasons for his absence. Before proceeding to pass any order under S. 247 Crlpc. , it is one of the legitimate duties of the Court to apply its mind and see whether there are good grounds or not to act one way or the other. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate does not appear to have applied his mind at all to this aspect of the matter. Evidently, the order which is the result of such arbitrary conduct cannot be said to be a proper or judicial order. The result is that the impugned order must be set aside as being not sustainable, and it is accordingly set aside and the case is remitted to the learned Magistrate for fresh disposal in accordance with law. --- *** --- .