Judgment Sunil Kumar Garg, J.-This appeal has been preferred by the complainant appellant against the order dated 15.90 passed by the learned Munsif Magistrate, Suratgarh in criminal case No. 44/85 for the offence Under Sections 323 and 447 I.P.C. by which the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint as on that date, neither the complainant nor his counsel was present and acquitted respondents No. 1 and 2 for the said offences. 2. Aggrieved from the order dated 15.90, the complainant has filed the present appeal. 3. In this appeal, it has been argued on behalf of the complainant appellant that proper opportunity of producing the doctor and other witnesses was not given to the complainant-appellant and, therefore, in these circumstances, the order dated 15.90 is bad in law and it should be set aside and the case should be sent back for re-trial. 4. I have heard both. .5. In my opinion, the present appeal should be dismissed for the following reasons: .(i) In this case, contents of the offences under Section 323 & 447 were read over to the accused respondents on 8.85 and since then many opportunities were given to the complainant-appellant to produce his evidence and he produced only two witnesses in the Trial Court from 20.1.86 to 15.90. Thus, sufficient opportunity was given to the complainant-appellant and, therefore, to remand the case on this ground is not at all tenable. .(ii) So far as the impugned order dated 15.90 is concerned, since on that date neither the complainant nor his counsel was present, therefore, the impugned order dated 15.90 purported to have been passed under Section 256 Cr.P.C. is valid order and it should not be interfered by this Court when sufficient opportunities were given to the complainant-appellant for producing his evidence. Thus, no illegality and irregularity has been committed by the learned Magistrate in passing the impugned order. (iii) Apart from this, the accused respondents were facing trial for minor offences under Sections 323 and 447 I.P.C. and this appeal is pending in this Court since 1991 and 10 years have passed and in my considered opinion, the order of acquittal though it might have been improper, should not be interfered if such period has elapsed especially when the offences are of petty nature. For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal is dismissed.