JUDGMENT 1. - This State appeal has been directed against the order dated 7.6.84 passed by the learned MJM, I Class Kotra in regular Criminal Case No. 109/83 whereby he acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Section 26 of the Forest Act keeping in view the provisions of Section 256 Cr.PC for absence of the complainant. 2. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused respondents. 3. Mr. Thakur has relied on the case of State of Rajasthan v. Prahalad and Ors., 1981 Cr.LR (Raj.) 101 and State of Rajasthan v. Chhitar, 1981 Cr.LR (Raj.) 699 . 4. I have carefully perused both these cases. In Prahalad's case (supra), the police filed a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 3/4, Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance. The Magistrate dismissed the said complaint for absence of the prosecuting sub-inspector under Section 247 Cr.PC and acquitted the accused persons. It was held that the prosecuting sub-inspector was not the complainant and Section 247 old Cr.PC did not apply and therefore the order of acquittal was set aside and the case was sent back for trial according to law. 5. In Chhitar's case (supra), a complaint was filed under Section 4(2) Rajasthan Prohibition Act. During trial the statements of the prosecution witnesses but for one PW Bhawani Singh, were recorded and the case was fixed for recording the evidence of the remaining prosecution witness. On the date fixed, the complainant was not present and the Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 256 Cr.PC and acquitted the accused. It was held that it was not sound exercise of discretion by the Magistrate because most of the prosecution evidence was already recorded and the personal attendance of complainant was not necessary. Apparently such are not the facts of the case on hand. In the instant case, out of twenty three accused persons, many of the accused persons were not even served. The case was fixed for attendance of the accused persons. No evidence was to be recorded. The matter was trivial in nature. The complainant was also absent. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 256 Cr.PC and acquitted the accused persons. 6. Mr. Thakur has then relied on the case of Inchhalal v. Harikishan etc., 1982 Cr.LR (Raj.) 42 . No evidence was to be recorded. The matter was trivial in nature. The complainant was also absent. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 256 Cr.PC and acquitted the accused persons. 6. Mr. Thakur has then relied on the case of Inchhalal v. Harikishan etc., 1982 Cr.LR (Raj.) 42 . The case was fixed for summoning of accused persons and the complainant was not present. The Magistrate therefore, acquitted the accused and dismissed the complaint under Section 256 Cr.PC. It was held that since the case was only fixed for appearance of some accused, the complainant's presence was not necessary and even in his absence, the court could be proceeded. However, this court held that though the order of the learned Magistrate could not be justified but still then since the case was of very petty nature and the occurrence took place on 13.2.75 i.e. more than six years ago, therefore, it was not a fit case for interference with the order of acquittal. 7. In the instant case, the offence under Section 26 of the Forest Act occurred sometimes in the year 1984. Thus, more than ten years have elapsed and the case is of petty nature. Therefore, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not at all necessary in the interest of justice to set aside the orders of acquittal and send the case back to the magistrate for trial. 8. Accordingly, this State appeal stands dismissed.State Appeal Rejected. *******