JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed against the orders recorded on 6.3.2007 by the learned trial Magistrate whereby he for want of appearance thereat of the complainant or his counsel hence for want of its prosecution, dismissed the apposite complaint. 2. The learned trial Magistrate in making the impugned pronouncement, appears to anvil it upon the mandate held in Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. provisions whereof stand 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 grounds of appeal instituted here-before unravel qua the complainant 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 his holding a perception qua the personal appearance there-before of the complainant being unnecessary, hence, it stood also enjoined upon the counsel engaged by the complainant, to, for obviating the apposite legal mischief/ensuals arising from his non appearance there-before, to hence ensure his presence there-before. However, the counsel for the complainant failed, to, on the relevant date record his appearance on behalf of the complainant before the learned Magistrate. Consequently, the Magistrate concerned was thereupon empowered to hence acquit the accused yet he failed to exercise the apposite statutory powers vested in him whereupon it was apt for him to adjourn the case rather than without any jurisdictional empowerment hence dismiss it. In aftermath the Magistrate, concerned has with a critical jurisdictional vice hence rendered a legally stained order. Moreover, in the grounds of appeal, their occurs a narrative qua the good reason which deterred the counsel for the complainant, to, on the relevant day, record his appearance on behalf of the complainant before the Magistrate concerned, reason whereof propounded in the grounds of appeal, when stands supported by an affidavit sworn by the complainant, thereupon it is befitting to impute credence thereto. In sequel, with a good reason standing propounded therein whereupon the counsel for the complainant stood deterred to record his appearance on behalf of the complainant on the relevant date before the learned trial Magistrate, thereupon this Court does conclude qua the relevant omissions of the learned counsel of the complainant to record his appearance on the relevant day before the learned Magistrate not arising from any deliberateness rather his relevant non appearance there-before, being unintentional besides also standing engendered by a good reason. Consequently, the impugned order is quashed and set-aside. 4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending applications if any. Consequently, the impugned order is quashed and set-aside. 4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending applications if any. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 14th June, 2017.