JUDGMENT D.P. Sinha, J. Amar Nath Jha has filed Criminal Miscellaneous no. 1816 of 1972 against an order dated the 3th of June, 1972, passed by a Munsif Magistrate, First Class, Rajmahal directing that the petition filed for withdrawal of the case against him under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, in acccordance with the provisions of section 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (herein after referred to as ‘the Code’) should await the appearance of the other accused persons. Similarly in Criminal Miscellaneous no. 1835 of 1972 Amarnath Jha has come up against an order of the same date in another case against him and others under the same section of the Indian Forest Act, by which he has passed an identical order directing that the petition of withdrawal of the case against Amarnath Jha and the other accused persons would be taken up for passing necessary orders after the appearance of the remaining accused persons. Both the above cases have been heard together and this order will govern both. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended, in the first place, that it was not necessary for the Magistrate to wait for the appearance of the other accused persons before passing an order on the petitions of withdrawal filed on behalf of the complainant under section 248 of the Code and, Secondly, he has contended that at least so far as the petitioner was concerned the learned Magistrate should have allowed withdrawal and acquitted him in terms of section 248 of the Code. Both the contentions of learned counsel are well founded. 3. It would appear that in either of the two cases, the Divisional Forest officer concerned had filed a complaint against the petitioner and others under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. It appears that subsequently in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 68 of the Indian Forest Act, the Forest officer empowered had compounded the offence, under section 33 of that Act, by accepting a sum of money by way of compensation for the offence which the accused persons were suspected to have committed. Sub-section (2) of section 68 provides among other things that on the payment of such sum of money to such officer, the suspected person if in custody shall be discharged and no further proceeding shall be taken up against such person. Sub-section (2) of section 68 provides among other things that on the payment of such sum of money to such officer, the suspected person if in custody shall be discharged and no further proceeding shall be taken up against such person. In view of the said provisions, a petition was filed on behalf of the Forest officer concerned, who was the complainant, praying that the cases be permitted to be withdrawn under section 248 of the Code. It is not in dispute that the provisions of section 248 of the Code applied to the two cases. It further appears from the said provisions that an application for withdrawal can be made at any time before a final order is passed under Chapter XX of the Code. Chapter XX of the Code applies to the trial of summons cases by Magistrates and a case under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, is a summons case, as the punishment provided there under extends to six months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both. In view of the fact that the provisions of section 248 of the Code applied to the petitions for withdrawal filed on behalf of the complainant, there was no question of waiting for the appearance of the other accused persons in the cases because such an application could be filed by the complainant at any time before the final orders were passed in the cases. All that the Magistrate was required to do was to be satisfied that they were fit cases in which the withdrawal should be permitted. In view of the facts stated above and the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 68 of the Indian Forest Act, which were said to have been fulfilled, there can be little doubt that these were fit cases in which the Magistrates should have permitted the withdrawal of the complaints and acquitted the accused persons without waiting for the appearance of the other accused persons. 4. In the circumstances, the applications are allowed and the impugned orders are here by set aside and the complaints in both the cases are permitted to be withdrawn, with the result that all the accused persons in the said two cases stand acquitted. Applications allowed.