S. Rangarajan, J.
(1) The petitioner and his counsel are absent. I have heard Shri Bishamber Dayal, counsel for the State.
(2) The only ground on which the petitioner has filed this revision petition is that the complainant, who was the General Manager of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had not made his personal appearance and, thereforee, the Magistrate had no discretion to adjourn the case at all in the absence of the complainant. It may be noticed that the complaint was presented to the learned Magistrate First Class, who was also the Special Magistrate, Delhi on 29th November 1967. Thereafter the case was adjourned. On 13th March 1968 the learned Magistrate had passed an order in writing as follows :-
'COMPLAINANTis exempted from personal attendance till further orders.'
(3) It is seen from the order sheet that even subsequent to 13th , March 1968 the case was adjourned and by May 1969 the stage of defense had been reached; the defense was closed on 7th May 1969 and the case was posted for arguments for 2nd June 1969.
(4) A revision petition was preferred to the Additional Sessions Judge who, by his order dated 2nd May 1968, refused to interfere with the order of the Magistrate declining to dismiss the complaint on 13th March 1968; on that date the learned Magistrate exempted the personal attendance of the complainant till further orders. When the learned Magistrate was pressed, on 13th March 1968, to dismiss the complaint on account of the absence of the complainant the learned Magistrate also observed as follows:-
'THEcomplaint is made by Shri J. M. Raina, a public servant and thereforee there is no justification to dismiss it if Shri Raina has not come today. Moreover in the complaint exemption of the complainant has also been prayed though no order of exemption is passed, may be through oversight or over-work. Rejected.'
(5) The learned Additional Sessions Judge declined to interfere with the said order.
(6) In the present revision petition the petitioner seeks to set aside the order of the learned Magistrate, not dismissing the complaint for the non-appearance of the complainant, and prays that the petitioner be discharged. The petitioner is clearly not entitled to put forward such a contention because, it is seen, the learned Magistrate has a discretion under section 247 Criminal Procedure Code . in the matter of adjourning the case even when the complainant is absent. Section 247 Criminal Procedure Code . reads as follows :-
'If the summons has been issued on complaint, and upon 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 proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day : Provided that 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.'
(7) Shri Bishamber Dayal also brings to my notice the decision of the Calcutta High Court in All Altaf Hossain and others v. Golam Rahaman Malik : AIR1959Cal525 where the scope of section 247 Criminal Procedure Code . was explained. It was pointed out that section 247 did not even require the Magistrate to state the reason which weighed with him in adjourning the case; the section does not say that a Magistrate will adjourn the hearing to some other day for reasons to be recorded by him.
(8) There is obviously no merit in this revision petition. The order of the learned Magistrate refusing to dismiss the complaint does not require to be reviewed.
(9) The files of this case be sent to the Magistrate for the case being tried expeditiously.
(10) Mr. M. L. Mehra has made his appearance. I have heard him fully on the merits of the case and have re-examined the view expressed by me. But I see no reason to change my view, already expressed.