Bhageerathi Ramamani vs Radhamma on 3 April, 1969
6. Learned Advocate for the appellant has referred to the case of Bhageerathi Ramamani v. Radhamma 1971 Cri LJ 115 (Ker). This decision dealt with Section 247 of the Code of 1898. It has been held in this decision that the object of the provision under Section 247 was to prevent dilatory tactics of the complainant and there was no warrant for the view that in all cases where the complainant was found to be absent on the date of hearing, the case had to be dismissed. In the instant case, on April 15, 1976 the accused persons were to be examined under Section 251 of the Code. In view of Section 256 of the Code, if the complainant in such a case does not appear, the Court may acquit the accused or may adjourn the case recording reasons or proceed under the proviso to Sub-section (1). The record shows that the complainant was attending the Court diligently. She was absent by petition on Oct. 3, 1975. On 2nd Feb. 1976 the complainant also appeared though she was a bit late in attending. The complainant did not appear on April 15, 1976. In the instant case the learned Magistrate should have considered whether he was unable to proceed with the case without the presence of the complainant and if he was of the opinion that he could not, then whether in view of the fact that the complainant was attending regularly he could not have adjourned the case. Section 256(1) of the Code gives discretion to the Magistrate to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other date or to proceed with the case even if the complainant is not present.