Complainant's absence does not mandate acquittal; Magistrate must exercise discretion and may proceed where a company is represented.

Section 247 CrPC confers judicial discretion on the Magistrate; the complainant's absence does not automatically require acquittal, and the court must consider whether personal attendance was necessary and whether adjournment was appropriate. On the facts, the complainant had already been examined, so acquittal was unjustified and was set aside. A company may also be treated as a complainant for this purpose because it can act only through a natural person; Section 247 therefore applies where the corporate complainant is represented in court by an individual.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the absence of the complainant on the hearing date required acquittal under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (ii) Whether a company could be treated as a complainant for the purpose of Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue (i): Whether the absence of the complainant on the hearing date required acquittal under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The provision was held to confer discretion on the Magistrate and not to compel acquittal merely because the complainant was absent. The court had to consider whether the complainant's personal attendance was necessary on that date and whether the matter should instead be adjourned. The power had to be exercised judicially and fairly, and in the facts of the case the complainant had already been examined and the circumstances did not justify resort to acquittal.

Conclusion: The complainant's absence did not justify acquittal, and the order of acquittal was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether a company could be treated as a complainant for the purpose of Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: A company is a juristic person and can file a complaint, but for practical purposes it must act through a natural person representing it in court. The scheme of the criminal procedure provisions, including examination of the complainant and dismissal for absence, showed that the complainant must be capable of physical in court, so the representative of the company is treated as the de facto complainant. The fact that the complainant is a company therefore does not make Section 247 inapplicable.

Conclusion: Section 247 applies even where the complainant is a company, provided it is represented by a natural person.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's dismissal was set aside, the acquittal was reversed, and the prosecution was directed to continue from the stage reached before the acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: The complainant's non-appearance does not mandate acquittal; the Magistrate must exercise judicial discretion by considering whether personal attendance was necessary and whether adjournment was appropriate, and a corporate complainant may validly proceed through a human representative.

---