JUDGMENT Kundan Singh, J. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment-and order dated 5.1.79 passed by Sri S.K. Tyagi, special Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, in criminal case No. 1219 of 1978 whereby accused -respondents Bhola, Jabar alias Narpat, Smt. Sona and Smt. Khajani have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 323/324 506 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case was that Smt. Bohati, wife of Natthoo was assaulted by the accused respondents with kicks and fists and Dandas at about 11.00 a.m. on 13.7.78 and an F.I.R. of that incident was lodged on 15.7.79 at about 12.45 p.m. against the accused respondents at police station Khatauli, district Muzaffarnagar. She also got herself medically examined and according to her injury report she sustained two incised wounds and one linear abrasion on her person. She fled the complaint in the court of special Judicial Magistrate and her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was also recorded by the court. 3. Accused Bhola, Jabar alias Narpat and Smt.Khajani were charged under Sections 32334. They alongwith Smt. Sona were also charged under Section 506/34 I.P.C. The accused persons pleaded not guilty. 5.1.79 was the date fixed in the court of Magistrate for cross examination of the witnesses and remaining evidence of the complainant but on that date neither the witnesses nor the complainant appeared in court and the learned Magistrate after considering the evidence on record acquitted the accused-respondents of the charges levelled against them. This appeal has preferred by the complainant on o ground that the learned Magistrate committed an error in acquitting e accused respondents merely on the ground that the complainant and her witnesses were not available in court in 5.1.79, the date fixed, for cross-examination whereas it was the duty of the Magistrate to have called the witnesses and hence the judgment and order appealed against is liable to be set aside. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajul Bhargava for the State. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajul Bhargava for the State. It is correct that the learned Magistrate fell into an error while dismissing the complaint on the aforesaid ground inasmuch as the present case being a warrant case he was required to summon the witnesses and to that extent the order of the Magistrate is wrong but now it has to be seen whether on this ground alone the order of acquittal should be set aside and now 14 years after the order of acquittal the accused respondent be relegated back to the court of the Magistrate for re-trial. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the matter. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 15.7.78. In the F.I.R. it is alleged that the complainant was assaulted with Dandas and kicks and fists. No doubt Smt. Bohati, the complainant has suffered two incised wounds one 1" x ?"-on the forehead and another " x ?" on the right fore arm and a linear abrasion " long on the base of left index finger but the injuries were found to be simple by the Doctor. According to the allegations made in the F.I.R. she was not assaulted with any sharp edge weapon though in the complaint the assault with a Khurpee has also been alleged. As stated above, all the injuries are very minor and simple in nature. If I set aside the order of the Magistrate and send back the case to him for re-trial, no useful purpose would be served inasmuch as the offences being very minor at the most the accused can be awarded a very lenient punishment and that may also be a very small or negligible amount of fine. There- fore, after such a long lapse of time I do not consider it a fit case for sending the accused respondent for retrial. 6. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.