JUDGMENT 1. This petition is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur. 2. The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act The non-petitioner filed a complaint, which was signed by the Assistant Engineer of the non-petitioner Board, in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur against petitioner and 8 other persons namely, Sarva Shri J.P. Khetan, H.C. Sogani, H.B. Dalmia, Sanjay Dalmia, B.S Mehta, Kul Bhushan, A.D. Agarwal, and H.S Oberai. On the appointed date i e. on 27-4-85, neither the complainant nor these accused persons appeared and therefore, the Court invoking the provisions of Section 256 Criminal Procedure Code acquitted the accused persons. 3. Being aggrieved from the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 27-4-85. the complainant Rajasthan State Water Pollution Control and Prevention Board filed a revision before learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bharatpur The learned Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the revision on the ground that Magistrate had wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 256 of Criminal Procedure Code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if this be tried as a warrant case, when neither the petitioner nor the respondents appeared on the appointed date, the proper course was to discharge the accused, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly directed that notices be issued to the parties and proceed with the case further. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that when it is a warrant case, no order can be passed under Section 256 of Criminal Procedure Code and District Judge has rightly set aside the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 27-4-85 There is no dispute on facts that neither the petitioner nor the respondent appeared in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 27-4-85, therefore, the proceedings were dropped and accused persons were acquitted. There is no dispute on the fact also that the offence committed by these persons is triable as warrant case, therefore, when it is a warrant case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has wrongly invoked the provisions of 256 of Criminal Procedure Code which is meant for summons cases. There is no dispute on the fact also that the offence committed by these persons is triable as warrant case, therefore, when it is a warrant case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has wrongly invoked the provisions of 256 of Criminal Procedure Code which is meant for summons cases. The provisions of Section 256 provides that if the summons have been issued on complaint and on the date appointed for the appearance of the accused or any date subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall notwithstanding anything contained hereinbefore, acquit the accused unless for some reasons he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day. The corresponding Section 249 for warrant cases, which provides that when the proceedings have been initiated on complaint, and on any date fixed for hearing of the case, the complainant is absent and the offence may be lawfully compounded or is not a cognizable offence, the Magistrate may in his discretion not with standing anything he rein before contained, at any time before the charge has been framed, discharge the accused. 5. Section 49 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence unless there is a complaint after previous sanction of the Board in writing. The provisions of this Act will have overriding effect to the provisions of any other Act so far they are inconsistent to the provisions of the Act. 6. Mere mention of wrong section does not affect the power of the Court. On absence of the complainant on the appointed date, the Magistrate was competent to discharge the accused. Section 249 provides that when the proceedings have been initiated upon complaint, and on any date fixed for the hearing of the case the complainant is absent and the offence may be lawfully compounded or is a cognizable offence, the Magistrate may, in his discretion can discharge the accused in such a situation either the offence is lawfully compounded or is not a cognizable offence. Learned counsel submits that it is not a cognizable offence, therefore, when the offence is not cognizable, the provisions of this Section empowers the Magistrate to discharge the accused. 7. Learned counsel submits that it is not a cognizable offence, therefore, when the offence is not cognizable, the provisions of this Section empowers the Magistrate to discharge the accused. 7. The learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order of Magistrate as he invoked the provisions of Section 256 of Criminal Procedure Code Even he could not discharge the accused petitioners under Section 249 of Criminal Procedure Code as the offence was not lawfully compounded by the parties. Section 249, Criminal Procedure Code puts a rider in case the Magistrate decide that either the offence is lawfully compounded or is not a cognizable offence. Though it is not lawfully compounded but when it is not a cognizable offence and complainant remained absent on the appointed date, it is a case of discharge under Section 249, Criminal Procedure Code This aspect has not been examined by learned Sessions Judge, therefore, the matter is remitted back to the learned Sessions Judge to consider the order of Magistrate afresh in the light of the fact that when complainant remained absent and the case is not cognizable, why the petitioners should not be discharged. 8. The next objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when in revision only Dalmiya Industries was made party and other eight persons were left out. they are not bound by the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge. Admittedly, neither they were made the parties, nor any notices were issued to them. It is basically against the principles of natural justice to pass any order in their absence affecting those eight persons adversely. Therefore, the observations of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Para 5 of his order are contrary to the principles of natural justice. 9. In the result I set aside the order of learned Additional. Sessions Judge dated 16-10-87 and remit the matter back to him to consider the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate afresh, whether the petitioner can be discharged under Section 249 of the Criminal Procedure Code.Revision allowed. *******