JUDGMENT- This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the applicant is invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court to set right an order of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, dated 21-8-1979, in Criminal Case No. 10764/1978. 2. The brief facts are, that the petitioner had filed a complaint case under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, against non-applicant No.1 which was duly registered as Criminal Case No. 10764/1978 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati. It appears that it was adjourned to 21-9-1979 for the appearance of the accused. However, the case was taken up by the learned Magistrate one month in advance on 21-8-1979, apparently through some error. Naturally the complainant was absent on the said date and the learned Magistrate was pleased to pass an order under section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, acquitting the accused, as the complainant was absent on the appointed day. 3. The petitioner thereafter appeared on the appointed date i. e. 21st September, 1979 and filed an application seeking restoration of the case. This remedy was obviously wrong inasmuch as, regular order of acquittal having been passed by the learned Magistrate, the complainant had the remedy to prefer an appeal against acquittal. Surprising as it is, the learned Magistrate realised his mistake and restored the case to file and again issued summonses to the accused. 4. The accused-respondent No. 1 thereafter preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati, who by his order dated 10-1-1980, allowed the revision petition, inter alia holding that the order of restoration passed by the learned Magistrate on 21-9-1979 was void and set aside the same, confirming the order of acquittal of the accused under section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The petitioner thereafter, having no remedy before him to redress justice, has preferred this criminal application under the provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. At the outset it is an admitted position that the learned Magistrate has picked up the case not on the appointed date, but one month in advance. Naturally the complainant was absent. For no fault of the complainant, therefore, the case of the complainant was dismissed and the accused stood acquitted under section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the outset it is an admitted position that the learned Magistrate has picked up the case not on the appointed date, but one month in advance. Naturally the complainant was absent. For no fault of the complainant, therefore, the case of the complainant was dismissed and the accused stood acquitted under section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also an admitted position and as averred in this petition itself, the petitioner also admits that it was a mistake on his part to have preferred an application for restoration of the case to the learned Magistrate, but to his own surprise the said application was allowed and his purpose was served. In any case it is apparent that initial order passed on 21-8-1979 by the Magistrate was itself bad in law, because, that was not the "appointed day" on which the complainant and the accused were asked to remain present. In that event of the matter, it is very clear to my mind that injustice has been done to the complainant and he has been rushing to one Court or the other, only to prosecute his original complaint. 7. Shri Shirpurkar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 vehemently argued that this Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inasmuch as the petitioner has himself chosen wrong forum earlier and even, the second time when the Sessions Judge, Amravati, reversed the finding of the trial Court, he had opportunity to review his earlier mistake and prefer an appeal against acquittal along with an application for condonation of delay. There is much force in this contention, but at the same time I am bound to say that while discussing the terminology and technicality of the Code, vis-a- vis, the present case, I do not find that on such grounds this particular petition should be thrown out. On the other hand, I would say that this is a fit case in which I would be justified in exercising inherent jurisdiction treating this petition as an appeal against acquittal order originally passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, on 21-8-1979, when in fact on a day, other than the appointed day, he dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused. In that view of the matter, Shri Shirpurkar, counsel for the respondent No. 1 has no objection. 8. In that view of the matter, Shri Shirpurkar, counsel for the respondent No. 1 has no objection. 8. It has been pointed out by the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent No.2 that earlier there have been certain decisions reported in Assistant Government Advocate v. Upendra Nath Mukerji1 and Achambit Mandal v. Mahatab Singh2 wherein on similar facts when the trial Court had wrongly acquitted the accused on a day other than the appointed day, the "High Court" and even the "Trial Court" had inherent jurisdiction to rectify its mistake. It is quite true that in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1913; ·there is no such specific provision giving inherent powers to the trial Court or the lower appellate Court. But I am of the opinion that in the fitness of things, if the mistake had taken place on behalf of the Court for no fault of the parties concerned, the Court would be justified in exercising inherent powers to rectify the same. However, in any case, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court would be justified in doing the same. 9. In the result, this Criminal Application No.91/1980 which is preferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is also treated as appeal against the acquittal against the criminal order dated 21-8-1979, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Delay, if any, is condoned. I have, therefore, no hesitation for passing the following order: 10. The application is allowed. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (4th Court) Amravati, in Criminal Case No. 10764/1978 decided on 21st August, 1979, is quashed and set aside and the original criminal case is restored to file as if the original accused Sheikh Vazir Patel, present respondent No. 1, was not acquitted and the case shall proceed with expediency. Consequently, the order passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 105/1979 by the Additional Sessions Judge. Amravati, on 10th January, 1980, is also quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. Order accordingly.