JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Balotra dated December 3, 1980, 2. The appellant, who is an Advocate, applied to be enlisted as a member of the Bar Association, Balotra from March 31, 1980 and paid Rs. 17/- as admission fee and annual subscription for the year 1980. In the receipt issued by the Secretary Bar Association, Balotra the year 1979 was erroneously mentioned instead of the year 1980. The appellant filed a criminal complaint against Jugal Kishore Dave, the then Secretary of the Bar Association, Balotra alleging that he had committed an offence punishable under Section 466, Indian Penal Code. The complaint was entertained by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Balotra and a charge was framed against Juga Kishore Dave in respect of an offence under Section 465, Indian Penal Code. The case was then posted for December 31, 1980 for recording the evidence of the complainant. 3. On December 3, 1980 when the case was called on for hearing the complainant-appellant was absent. No person appeared on his behalf and he was not represented by a lawyer. The appellant sent by post an application for adjournment of along with a medical certificate, which does not bear any date. The learned Magistrate did not accept the adjournment application which was received by post and as neither the complainant nor his lawyer was present and further as no witness was present on his behalf, the complaint was dismissed under Section 256, Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The complainant, who is the appellant before this court, has argued the appeal himself. It was submitted by him that it was the duty of the Magistrate to adjourn the hearing of the case when he had received the application for adjournment along with the medical certificate by post and that the discretion which the learned Magistrate had, under Section 256, Code of Criminal Procedure, was wrongly exercised by him. Section 256 Cr. P. C, runs as under:- "Section 256, Nonappearance or death of Complainant. Section 256 Cr. P. C, runs as under:- "Section 256, Nonappearance or death of Complainant. (1) If the summons has been issued on complainant, and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent, there to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything herein before contained, acquit the accused, unless tor some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day. Provided that share the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution or 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. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the non-appearance of the complainant is due to his death." 5. Thus it is clear that in case the complainant is absent on the date of I hearing to which the case is adjourned, then the Magistrate is bound to acquit the accused unless for some reason he considers it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other date. 6. In the present case, the learned Magistrate did not consider it proper to exercise the discretion in favour of the complainant appellant. The complainant himself was absent and he had no lawyer to represent him. The appellant has placed reliance upon the decisions in C.R. Alwaras v. Habool, AIR 1956 Rajasthan 100 Boharilal v. Ramjilal, AIR 1965 Rajasthan 19 and State of Bihar v. Avodhaya Sharma Sudhaker and others, 1973 Cr.LJ 896 . In the first two cases of this Court, although the complainant was absent, yet the counsel for the complainant was present and it was held that the Magistrate should have adjourned the hearing in the particular circumstances of these cases. In Sucihakar's case (3) the Patna High Court has held that the Magistrate need not necessarily dismiss the complaint and acquit the accused when the complainant is absent and that the Magistrate must apply his mind to the question whether there are grounds for adjourning the case or for dispensing with the personal attendance of the complainant before taking recourse to the other alternative of acquitting the accused. 7. 7. In the present case, as mentioned above, not only the complainant was absent but no lawyer was present on his behalf and even his witnesses were not present, although the case was fixed for recording the complainant's evidence. In these circumstances, the Magistrate was right in dismissing the complaint under Section 256, Code of Criminal Procedure and in acquitting the accused. As I have already referred to the facts of the case, it appears to me that the complaint itself was frivolous as it might be that by sheer mistake the Secretary of the Bar Association had mentioned in the receipt the year 1979 instead of year 1980. It appears to me that there was n o means plea or motive in committing this error. On the other hand it appears that the complainant desires to settle some other scores with Jugal Kishore Dave and has made this complaint on a flimsy pretext. Taking an over all view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with and set aside the order of acquittal. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Balotra under Section 256, Code of Criminal Procedure, upheld. Sd/- Dwarka Prasad, A.C.J.Appeal dismissed. *******