Short Note : 1. The Station Officer, Police Station, Hatpiplya, District Dewas, submitted a Challan against the respondents before the learned Magistrate, First Class, Bagli, alleging that the respondents had committed an offence punishable under section 380 read with section 34 IPC On 3rd November 1972, the learned Magistrate, after satisfying himself that the documents referred to in section 173 Cr.P.C., (old) had been furnished to the accused and after following the procedure prescribed by section 251-A (3) Cr.P.C., framed a charge against the accused under section 379 read with section 34 IPC. The charge was then read and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Magistrate accordingly fixed 19th January 1973 for the examination of witnesses. On that date, the accused and some of the prosecution witnesses were present in the Court. An application was filed on behalf of the Assistant Police Prosecutor that as he had to attend another Court for giving evidence, he was unable to conduct the case. The learned Magistrate held that in the circumstances he had no other option but to acquit the accused. The learned Magistrate accordingly, by his impugned order, acquitted the accused of the offence charged with. Aggrieved by that order, the State has preferred this appeal. Held: In the instant case, some of the prosecution witnesses were present on the date fixed for evidence. If the learned Magistrate was not inclined to adjourn the case, he should have proceeded to examine the witnesses present in the Court under section 540 Cr.P.C., (old) and then should have proceeded to dispose of the case in accordance with law. By acquitting the accused without following the procedure prescribed by sub-sections (7) to (11) of section 251-A Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate has, in our opinion, acted illegally. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. State v K.A. Shariff, AIR 1971 Mysore 60 relied on. 2. Appeal allowed, case remanded for fresh disposal.