JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Respondent despite service not present either personally or through authorized counsel. Hence, proceeded against ex-parte. 1. The instant petition stands directed against the orders recorded on 9.11.2016 by the learned trial Magistrate whereby she for want of appearance thereat of the complainant or its counsel hence dismissed the apposite complaint for want of its prosecution. 2. The learned trial Magistrate in making the impugned pronouncement, had anvilled it upon the mandate held in Section 256 of the Cr.P.C, section whereof stands extracted hereinafter:- “256. Non- appearance or death of complainant. (1) 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, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day: Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case. (2) The provisions of sub- section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the non- appearance of the complainant is due to his death.” 3. The power vested in sub-section (1) thereof upon the Magistrate concerned, gets awakened, on the complainant despite his standing served for a particular date for his recording his appearance, his not thereat recording his appearance whereupon the Magistrate concerned holds the jurisdiction to acquit the accused, unless for a good reason, the Magistrate concerned in his wisdom deems it fit to adjourn the case to some other day. However, the aforesaid provisions appear to not availed by the Magistrate concerned, significantly when a reading of the petition instituted herebefore unravels qua the complainant company engaging a counsel for prosecuting the apposite complaint before the learned Magistrate whereupon the mandate held in the proviso to Section 256 stands rejuvenated arising from the demonstrable factum of the complainant hereat engaging a counsel to prosecute the apposite complaint whereupon it was incumbent upon the counsel concerned, to record his appearance before the learned trial Magistrate also when it stands not underscored in the impugned order qua hers holding a perception qua the personal appearance therebefore of the complainant being unnecessary, hence, it stood also enjoined upon the authorized representatives of the complainant, to, for obviating the apposite legal mischief arising from its non representation therebefore to hence ensure his presence therebefore alongwith the counsel for the complainant company. However, both the counsel for the complainant also its authorized representatives failed to record their respective appearances on behalf of the complainant company before the learned Magistrate. However, in the petition, their occurs a narrative qua the good reason which deterred both the counsel for the complainant also its authorized representatives, to, on the relevant day, record their respective appearances on behalf of the complainant company before the Magistrate concerned, reason whereof propounded in the petition when stands supported by an affidavit sworn by the authorized representative of the Company, thereupon it is befitting to impute credence thereto. In sequel, with a good reason standing propounded therein whereupon the counsel for the complainant and the authorized representative of the complainant company stood respectively deterred to record their appearances on behalf of the complainant company on the relevant date before the learned trial Magistrate, thereupon this Court does conclude qua the relevant omissions of the learned counsel and of the authorized representative of the complainant to record their respective appearance on the relevant day before the learned Magistrate not arising from any deliberateness rather their relevant respective non appearance therebefore, being unintentional besides also standing engendered by good reason. Consequently, the impugned order is quashed and set-aside. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 28th April, 2017.