JUDGMENT V. K Mehrotra, J.—I have heard Sh. Lalit Sharma for the petitioner and Sh. Prem Goel for the respondents. 2. A complaint was lodged by applicant Jaswant Singh against the various respondents in respect of offences said to have been committed by the respondents on March 15, 1986 under sections 447 and 395, I.P.C. On this complaint, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rohru, after recording preliminary evidence and hearing arguments, committed the case for trial to the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla on November 28, 1989. The case was assigned by the learned Sessions Judge on January 8, 1990 to the Additional Sessions Judge (I), Shimla for trial. 3. The matter came up before the Additional Sessions Judge (I), Shimla on several dates and on May 8, 1991, when the Counsel for the complainant as also for the accused persons were present before him, the learned Additional Sessions Judge heard arguments on the question “whether the evidence brought on the record constitutes a prima facie case go as to proceed against the accused to frame the charge-sheet or not." The case was directed to come up for orders on May 15, 1991. 4. The order-sheet of the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge also shows that on May 15, 1991 the case was called out several times, thrice in the forenoon and thrice thereafter in the afternoon. The Court waited for 20 minutes but no one appeared for the complainant. As such, it was dismissed for default of the complainant and was ordered to be consigned to the record room after completion. 5. The procedure for trial of a case before a Court of Sessions is contained in Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure from sections 225 to 237. There is almost a similar procedure for trial of Warrant-cases by Magistrates, contained in Chapter XIX of the Code. The procedure for trial of Summons-cases is contained in Chapter XX consisting of sections 221 to 225. 6. There is almost a similar procedure for trial of Warrant-cases by Magistrates, contained in Chapter XIX of the Code. The procedure for trial of Summons-cases is contained in Chapter XX consisting of sections 221 to 225. 6. A perusal of the provisions contained in these chapters makes it clear beyond doubt that in a case before a Court of Sessions, the Court is empowered to discharge the accused persons under section 227 "if, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused”. He shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for doing so. 7. If after consideration of the record of the case and hearing the submissions on behalf of the accused and the prosecution, the Judge is of opinion that there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which is triable by the Court of Sessions, he would frame a charge against the accused persons in writing. This is provided in section 228. There is no provision which enables the Sessions Court to dismiss the case for default of the complainant. 8. In contrast, section 256, contained in Chapter XX which relates to trial of Summons-cases by Magistrates, says that: "256. Non appearance or death of complainant.—(I) If the summons has been issued on complaint, and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day : Provided that where 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 this attendance and proceed with the case. (2) The provision 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." 9. (2) The provision 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." 9. Quite clearly, the Code does not envisage the dismissal of a case for default of the complainant by the Sessions Judge to whom it is committed for trial. 10. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the present case cannot be sustained. It is set-aside. The tile of the Court below shall be sent back forthwith to enable it to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. The revision shall stand allowed in these terms. 11. Before parting with this judgment, I may notice a submission made by Sh. Prem Goel, appearing for the accused-respondents, that all the subsisting disputes between the parties stood finally settled by this Court on September 17, 1991 in FAO (Ordinary) No. 151 of 1988, while dealing with the dispute involved in that F.A.O as well as in Criminal Revision No. 95 of 1989 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 53 of 1990. It would not be appropriate, for this Court, to make any observation about this submission except for saying that it will be open to the accused persons to bring the necessary facts to the notice of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in accordance with law. Order accordingly.