Kunhi Raman, C.J.
1. This is an appeal presented on behalf of the State by the learned Public Prosecutor from an order of acquittal made by the Stationary Second Class Magistrate of Trivandrum City. It appears from the order made by the court below that there was a police report submitted to the Magistrate about the commission of an offence by the accused under Section 352 of the Travancore Penal Code and Section 53 of Act XXII of 1115. Admittedly, the case was a summons case because the punishment provided in both these sections does not exceed three months' imprisonment. On the date to which the case was posted, the Magistrate has stated in his order, the complainant was found to be absent and although his name was called out both at the commencement of the sitting of the Court and at the time the court rose for the day, there was no response. In the circumstances, professing to act under Section 244 of the Travancore Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate has passed an order of acquittal. Section 244 refers to cases which are started upon a complaint. In the present case, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence not upon any complaint, but upon a Police report. Therefore the statements in the order that the case was started on a complaint and that on the adjourned date the complainant was absent, cannot be supported. Section 244 does not refer to a case which was taken cognizance of on a Police Report. The order made by the Magistrate acquitting the accused under Section 244 is, therefore, incorrect. Following our decision in a similar case which came up before this Court on the 23rd of July 1951, in State v. Kittan Velayudhan Criminal appeals Nos. 91 and 93 of 1951 we set aside the order of acquittal and direct the Magistrate to deal with the case according to law.