Judgment S. C. MITAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition arises out of the order dated 3-9-1986, the proceedings in criminal misc. case No. 14/84 under Section 16 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (for short the Act) were ordered to be dropped on account of absence of Assistant Public Prosecutor by the learned S. D. M. , Chittorgarh. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts are that Shri Pratap S/o Shri Ratna Bheel R/o Galiamal lodged a written report on 18-6-1984 to S. P. Chittorgarh that Thakur Mithu Singh R/o Pichtoli is compelling him and his wife for the last five years to render work as bonded labour. Shri Mithu Singh advanced Rs. 1500/- to his father and got executed a writing for Rs. 7500/- about five years ago. His wife has also been confined in his house. On this report the case under Section 16 of the Act was registered and after due investigation, challan was filed against the non-petitioner. The case was listed for arguments for charge on 27-2-1984, on an application by Assistant Public Prosecutor, that a case under Sections342 and 384, IPC is also made out against the non-petitioner. This application was not pressed on 24-4-1985 and the case was fixed for evidence but instead of recording the evidence the case was fixed for arguments about the jurisdiction of S. D. M. Chittorgarh to try this case. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sought adjournments to file before the Court the relevant notification conferring the jurisdiction to Executive Magistrates to try such offence under the Act. Ultimately, the impugned order dated 3-9-1986 was passed. Several opportunities were given to Assistant Public Prosecutor to produce the relevant notification and he was not present and as such the proceedings were dropped. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the relevant notification is on the record and, therefore, it was not correct to hold that notification was not filed by Assistant Public Prosecutor despite several opportunities. It is further argued that the offence under Section 16 of the Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to three years and also with a fine which may extend to Rs. 2000/- and a warrant case and, therefore, the proceedings could not be dropped in the manner it has been done in the impugned order. 2000/- and a warrant case and, therefore, the proceedings could not be dropped in the manner it has been done in the impugned order. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned order be set aside and the case may be remanded back for trial according to law. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner has supported the impugned order that when the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was not present, nothing could be done and the case was dropped. It is further contained that no useful purpose will be served in remanding the case after about more than 10 years. ( 3 ) I have anxiously considered the rival contentions. Section 16 of the Act provides for punishments for enforcement of bonded labour that after the commencement of the Act, whoever compels any person to render bonded labour shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may exceed to 3 years and also with a fine which may exceed to Rs. 2000/ -. ( 4 ) SCHEDULE Ist under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 under the classification of offences against other laws lays down that if an offence is punishable by imprisonment of 3 years and upwards but not more than 7 years then such offence is cognizable and non-bailable and triable by Magistrate of Ist class. It follows that the offence under Section 16 of the Act is a warrant case as denied in Section 2 (x) of Cr. P. C. 1973 because the punishment for the offence exceeds two years of imprisonment. It further follows that the procedure prescribed for the warrant case shall have to be followed as laid down under Section 238 and onwards. Section 249, Cr. P. C. provides that when the proceedings have been instituted upon complaint and if the complainant is absent on the date of hearing then the Magistrate may in his discretion at any time before the charge, discharge the accused if the offence is lawfully compoundable or is not a cognizable offence. ( 5 ) THE case in hand was not instituted on a complaint, but the challan was filed under Section 173, Cr. P. C. by P. S. Kotwali, Chittorgarh and on behalf of the State learned Assistant Public Prosecutor conducted the case. The offence under Section 16 of the Act is cognizable offence. In view of this nature of the proceedings and the offence involved therein. P. C. by P. S. Kotwali, Chittorgarh and on behalf of the State learned Assistant Public Prosecutor conducted the case. The offence under Section 16 of the Act is cognizable offence. In view of this nature of the proceedings and the offence involved therein. I am of the opinion that on account of absence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, the case could not be dropped. In fact it may be observed that the order passed by the learned S. D. M. Chittorgarh is very vague. It does not disclose that under what provision the powers have been exercised by the S. D. M. and under what provisions the case has been ordered to be dropped like this. It is also correct that the relevant notification has already been filed and case was pending for hearing about the jurisdiction of the Court and this aspect of the case could have been considered by learned S. D. M. even in absence of Assistant Public Prosecutor. In view of this discussion, I am clearly of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained as it is against the above provisions of law. ( 6 ) I am not inclined to accept the contention that even if the impugned order is set aside, the case cannot be remanded for trial. When the trial has been dropped illegally then after setting aside the order, the trial should proceed in accordance with law. Of course, 10 years have elapsed since the impugned order was passed because the revision petition is pending since 1987. But, this fact by itself is not cogent ground to terminate the proceedings. I, therefore, reject the contention of the learned counsel for the non-petitioner for terminating the proceedings at this stage by this Court. ( 7 ) IN the result, the impugned order dated 3-9-1986 is hereby set aside. The misc. criminal case No. 14/84. State v. Mithu Singh is hereby remanded to S. D. M. , Chittorgarh to proceed with the case and try it accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the S. D. M. , Chittorgarh on 10-9-1996. Order accordingly.