Judgment :- 1. A common question arises in these criminal appeals and hence these are being disposed of by a common Judgment. The appellant in all these cases is the Revenue Inspector, Shertallai Municipality, and the respondents are the accused in the relevant criminal cases, who have not paid profession tax levied on them. All these cases ended in acquittal of the accused under S.247 Cr. P.C. since the complainant, the appellant here, was not present when the cases were taken up on 28101972. The order is similar in all cases and the same is extracted below: "The case was called on for hearing to-day to which it had been posted. The complainant not being present either in person or by pleader the accused is acquitted under S.247 Criminal Procedure Code". The cases against which criminal appeal Nos. 66 and 67 of 1973 are filed were posted to 28101972 to bring the accused, pursuant to warrants issued against them. It is said that in these two cases pw.1 was examined in part. In the other three cases, from which criminal appeal Nos. 68, 69 and 70 arose, the cases were posted for appearance of the accused. The question is whether S.247 Cr. P.C. could be freely exercised, as the Magistrate has done in these cases, without taking into account whether the presence of the complainant was absolutely necessary on that day and whether the case could have been proceeded with on that day without his presence. It is necessary to extract S.247 Cr.P.C. "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 hereinbefore 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." In these cases, even if the complainant was present the cases could not have been proceeded with. It is seen that the complainant had made a report to the court in all these cases that he was on privilege leave and his absence may be excused. It is seen that the complainant had made a report to the court in all these cases that he was on privilege leave and his absence may be excused. The order would indicate that the case was "called on for hearing today". This may not be correct. Two cases were posted for the production of the accused and the other three cases, for appearance of the accused. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to a few cases where the scope of S.247 Cr.P.C, was considered. The decisions are reported in Johrilal v. Ramjilal AIR. 1965 Rajasthan 19, Chinnam v. Chandramma AIR. 1963 Orissa 90, In re Jamnabai v. Meghji AIR. 1934 Bombay 130, Joseph v. Anchalo Fernandez AIR. 1951 T. C. 25 and Union of India v. Lachhman AIR. 1962 H. P. 57. In all these cases, the point emphasised is, where the Court may legitimately come to the conclusion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary and the case could not make any progress even if the complainant was present, he should dispense with the complainant's attendance and proceed with the case or adjourn it, as the case may be. 3. In the cases on hand, if the accused were present and had admitted the offences with which they were charged, the Magistrate could have straightaway entered conviction against them. If they did not admit the offence, the cases will have to be adjourned to another date for evidence to be taken. In none of these cases could the Magistrate proceed with the case or make any progress. In Union of India v. Lachhman, AIR. 1962 H P. 52, the learned judge who decided the case went to the extent of observing that to use the provisions of S.247 Cr.P.C. particularly where even with the presence of the complainant no progress could be made will amount to abuse of the process of Court. Although I do not go to that extent, the principle appears to be well-settled that S.247 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to acquit the accused only when the Magistrate is satisfied either that the complainant has been deliberately absenting himself or when he could make no progress in the case if the complainant is present. 4. Counsel for the respondent brought to my notice the decision reported in Sanitary Inspector v. lyyavu 1959 KLT.1277. 4. Counsel for the respondent brought to my notice the decision reported in Sanitary Inspector v. lyyavu 1959 KLT.1277. In that case, Raman Nayar J. as he than was, observed that the acquittal is the rule and adjournment an exception for which there must be some good reason. I am in respectful agreement with the observations in that case. But in that case, the learned judge was persuaded to sustain the acquittal since the complainant had absented himself on two successive occasions from appearing in Court. In these cases, such an accusation against the complainant is absent. And as indicated above, the cases were either posted for production of the accused or for their appearance. The orders passed by the Magistrate do not indicate any other reason why he entered the finding of acquittal against accused, except that the complainant was absent on the date when the cases were called. I am satisfied that the orders of acquittal passed by the Magistrate in these cases are not in proper exercise of jurisdiction under S.247 Cr. P.C. In the result, the criminal appeals are allowed and the orders of acquittal are set aside. The cases are sent back to the Court below for expeditious disposal according to law. Allowed.