JUDGMENT C.D. Parekh, J. - I have heard the learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The Facts of the case are very simple. The Factory Inspector filed a complaint against the respondent, which complaint proceeded in the court of S.D.M., Hata at Kasia, Distt. Deoria. The case proceeded as summons case and from the reading of the order sheet it appears that on each date of hearing the complainant was present in court except on July 1, 1970 when this complaint was dismissed for default of the complainant to appear before the court. The Magistrate passed the following order :- "Case called out. The complainant is absent. The complaint is dismissed in default." 3. From the order sheet, it appears that the accused was examined. Thereafter when he pleaded not guilty the prosecution examined its witnesses and the accused was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. and thereafter he entered into the defence and examined one witness in defence. The arguments were heard on May 14, 1970 and thereafter July 1, 1970 was fixed for delivery of judgment. On that date, as observed by the Magistrate, the complainant was not present. 4. Under section 247, Criminal Procedure Code presence of the complainant, in my opinion, is required on each date of hearing, and on July 1, 1970, the case was not to be heard, but the judgment was required to be delivered by the Magistrate, which was an act to be performed by the Magistrate and the complainant had nothing to do on that date. The wordings of Section 247, Criminal Procedure Code, which runs thus, are quite clear :- "247. If the summons has been issued on complaint, and upon the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything herein- before contained, acquit the accused unless for some reason he thinks proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day. Provided that where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal, attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance, and proceed with the case." 5. Provided that where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal, attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance, and proceed with the case." 5. According to the learned counsel for the respondent since the case was continuing and continued for the purpose of delivery of judgment and therefore, it was a date for hearing and since the complainant defaulted and did not appear on that date, therefore, the Magistrate was within his power to dismiss the case for default. 6. In my opinion, the wordings of Section 247, Criminal Procedure Code are quite clear that the appearance of the complainant is necessary or required on the date of hearing not otherwise. In my opinion, the date of delivery of judgment is no date of hearing and thus it cannot be argued that the failure of the complainant to be present in the court on the date of delivery of judgment would be fatal to the case and the case complainant could be dismissed for default. 7. I, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Magistrate and remand the case back for being decided according to law. The appeal is allowed.