Judgment :- In this petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner, the accused in S.T. No. 528 of 1993 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram seeks to quash the complaint. First respondent filed that complaint alleging commission of offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The grievance of petitioner is that the Magistrate failed to acquit the accused for non-appearance of the complaint. 2. Heard counsel for petitioner. 3. The complaint S.T. No. 528 of 1993 had come up before the Magistrate on 5-10-1994 on which date the counsel for petitioner is alleged to have argued on the maintainability of the complaint. The case was adjourned to 21-10-1994 on which date the complainant or his counsel was not present. The court instead of acquitting the accused under Sec. 256(1) of the Code, adjourned the case to 4-11-1994 for evidence. From that date the case was adjourned to 8-3-1995. The contention of counsel is that the Magistrate should have acquitted the accused on the complainant remaining absent on the date of hearing. 4. Section 256 of the Code provides that 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 acquit the accused unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day. The Section empowers the Magistrate to acquit the accused if on the date of hearing to which the case may be adjourned the complainant does not appear. Three courses are open to the Magistrate in a summons case when complainant is absent on the date of hearing : (1) the accused may be acquitted; (2) the case may be adjourned; or (3) the Magistrate may proceed with the trial if personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary. It is settled law that the court should not act in a mechanical manner and proceed to pass an order of acquittal merely for the absence of the complainant. A discretion is vested with the Magistrate to adjourn the case even though the word used is 'shall'. The Section only says that the Magistrate has every power to acquit the accused for the non-appearance of the complainant and such an acquittal will be perfectly legal. A discretion is vested with the Magistrate to adjourn the case even though the word used is 'shall'. The Section only says that the Magistrate has every power to acquit the accused for the non-appearance of the complainant and such an acquittal will be perfectly legal. But if the Magistrate in the exercise of his discretion adjourns the case, it cannot be said that the order is either improper or illegal. The Section confers such power on the Magistrate. 5. It is contended that no reason has been given by the Magistrate for adjourning the case. This plea is unsustainable since the Section does not contemplate any reason to be given by the Magistrate in case he adjourns the case. The expression used in the Section is "for some reason he thinks it proper". The Section does not say that the reason for granting adjournment should be recorded. In short, the Magistrate has got a discretion in the matter of granting adjournment even in the case of absence of the complainant. When the discretion conferred on him under the Section is exercised in favour of the complainant, the order is neither wrong nor illegal. Interference with the order is therefore not warranted. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the Crl. Miscellaneous case is dismissed. Petition dismissed.