JUDGMENT G.F. Couto, J. - The appellant herein filed a criminal complaint against the respondent No.1 Krishnanath Khandeparkar, charging him of having committed offences under Sections 323 and 504 of the I P.C. It is his case that on 25th October, 1986 and at the ferry jetty of Chorao, the accused uttered a buses against the complainant and thereafter, assaulted him with fist blows on the face, as a result of which the complainant sustained a bleeding injury on his right cheek just below the right eye. 2. The accused/first respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge and therefore, evidence was recorded and ultimately, the learned Magistrate disposed of the case by his judgment dated 3th November, 1987 whereby he acquitted the accused. It is against this acquittal that this Appeal is moved with the leave of the Court. 3. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on three grounds, namely (1) that the complaint was lodged with a delay of 25 days which was not explained; (2) that the incident took place at 7.15 a.m. at the Chorao jetty. At that time, many people were present, but the complainant did not examine any independent witness; and (3) that the complainant did not file a complaint before the police. To say the least the above reasons given by the learned Magistrate to record the acquittal are surprising. They are not at all germane and in no manner justify the discarding of the prosecution witnesses, which actually establish beyond any reasonable doubt the offences complained of. 4. In fact, the complainant Basilio Fernandes has given evidence and he stated that an 25th October, 1986, i.e. an the day of the incident, he was proceeding to Panjim in his jeep GOB-2711 at about 7.15 a.m. in order to reach Maria Carmelina Dias at the panjim ferry wharf as she was going to board the steamer to Bombay. The witness also gave a lift to Severina Fernandes, Filsu Pinto, Carmina Pinto and a small child. While going towards the ferry paint at Chorao one motorcyclist tried to. overtake the jeep, but could not do so as the road was narrow. After some time, a bus came from the apposite direction and the witness slowed down the jeep. At that time, the motorcyclist over take the jeep. While going towards the ferry paint at Chorao one motorcyclist tried to. overtake the jeep, but could not do so as the road was narrow. After some time, a bus came from the apposite direction and the witness slowed down the jeep. At that time, the motorcyclist over take the jeep. The complainant continued towards the ferry paint and he noticed the motorcycle moving in front of the jeep in a zig zag manner so as to prevent the complainant from overtaking him. The motorcyclist dashed against the jeep an the way, but did not fall dawn. The complainant reached the ferry wharf at Chorao and he was sitting at the steering wheel, when suddenly the accused approached him and after making a threatening gesture, abused the complainant with dirty wards and challenged him to come ant as he was going to teach him a lesson. Thereafter, the accused assaulted the complainant with first blows an his face, causing a cut injury an the upper side of the chin o0n the right. The complainant was thoroughly cross-examined, but his statement was not shaken to the last. Witness No. 2 is Maria C. Dias. She stated that an 25th October, 1986 at about 7 a.m., she boarded the jeep of the complainant at Model in order to proceed to Panjim. When the jeep reached Model, she saw a motorcyclist in front of the jeep moving in a zig zag manner. The said motorcyclist dashed slightly against the jeep. When the jeep reached Chorao jetty, the accused came near and challenged the complainant to came out of the jeep. He abused the complainant with dirty wards and further caught hold of the shirt of the complainant near the caller and gave him a first blow an the face. The complainant sustained a bleeding injury. This witness also was duly crass-examined and stated the test. Finally, Severina Fernandes, P.W. 3 Was examined and she stated that she was traveling in the jeep an the day of the incident. She said that one motorcyclist was proceeding in front of the jeep and when they reached the ferry wharf at Chorao the accused came near the complainant and after asking him whether he (complainant) was wanting to kill him, abused the complainant with dirty wards and assaulted him. The complainant sustained a bleeding injury. The evidence of this witness also was not shaken in cross-examination. The complainant sustained a bleeding injury. The evidence of this witness also was not shaken in cross-examination. In addition to this, there is the evidence of Anthony Colaco, who was examined as defence witness. The said Colaco corroborates that an incident took place at the Chorao wharf and he further stated that the incident was due to something that happened an the road between the jeep and the motorcycle. He, of course, denied the assault and put the blame an the complainant, but the fact remains that he did not deny that any incident involving the complainant and the accused did occur. 5. I already said what were the grounds far the acquittal of the accused. It is rather strange that the learned Magistrate had considered a goad ground for acquittal the fact - that a complaint was not filed to the pal ice forgetting entirely that the offence complained of, namely under Section 323, was not a cognizable offence. Secondly, although more persons were present at the time of the incident at the ferry wharf, the fact that they were not examined does not show and establish that the prosecution witnesses had not spoken the truth. Neither Maria Dias nor Severnia Fernandes are related to the complainant and there is nothing in their evidence which will justify the discarding of their evidence. They are mere neighbors and at the most, the learned Magistrate ought to have scrutinized their evidence with care. This much was not done by the learned Magistrate who discarded the evidence on a very flimsy ground. The last reason to justify the acquittal was that the complaint was filed with a delay of 25 days. This ground obviously does not hold water, for the learned Magistrate had not discussed the case and shown that the delay of 25 days in filing the complaint had contributed for an improvement of the incident. This being so, it is obvious that the impugned judgment is erroneous and cannot be allowed to stand. On the contrary, the evidence adduced by the complainant establishes beyond any reasonable doubt the offence complained of by him. The first respondent therefore, is liable to be convicted for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. 6. Though duly served, the first respondent chose to be absent at the hearing of this appeal and he did not even get himself represented by a counsel. The first respondent therefore, is liable to be convicted for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. 6. Though duly served, the first respondent chose to be absent at the hearing of this appeal and he did not even get himself represented by a counsel. This being so, it is manifest that this Court has no opportunity today to examine him on the point of sentence and in this regard a remand becomes necessary. 7. The result therefore, is that the impugned judgment dated 13th November, 1987 is hereby quashed and set aside and the first respondent Krishnanath Khandeparkar is convicted under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate is directed to hear the said respondent and thereafter pass adequate sentence against him within 30 days from today. Appeal allowed.