Riciiardson and Shams-ul-Huda, JJ.
1. In this case the opposite party was prosecuted by the present petitioner under, Section 2 of Act XIII of 1859. The hearing of the case began on the 21st November, 1918, and was adjourned to the 18th December, when as the order sheet shows, the defence was closed and arguments were heard. The Magistrate then adjourned the case to the 21st December for judgment. On the 21st December the learned Magistrate, instead of delivering judgment, acquitted the opposite party, under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the ground that the complainant was absent without any reasonable excuse. Under Section, 247 'if the summons has been issued on complainant, 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.'
2. The present case, in our opinion, does not fall within that provision because the hearing of the case had already been concluded. All that the Magistrate had to do was to deliver his judgment. The attendance of the complainant, the petitioner, had not been specially directed. We are accordingly of opinion that the order acquitting the opposite party is erroneous, and should be set aside.
3. We set it aside and direct the Magistrate to dispose of the case in accordance with law.