Judicial discretion under Section 256 CrPC requires reasoned findings before acquittal for complainant's absence.

An acquittal under Section 256 CrPC for the complainant's absence is not automatic. The Magistrate must exercise judicial discretion on the facts, consider whether the complainant's presence was essential, and record reasons showing that adjournment was not proper. Where the order contains no finding on these matters and no reasoned assessment of the relevant circumstances, the exercise of discretion is legally infirm. The document states that the acquittal was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, with the matter restored for disposal according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal of the accused under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for absence of the complainant was sustainable when the Magistrate did not exercise judicial discretion or record reasons showing that adjournment was not proper.

Analysis: An order of acquittal under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not automatic on mere absence of the complainant. The Magistrate must apply judicial discretion to the facts and circumstances and consider whether the complainant's presence was essential and whether there was any justifiable reason to adjourn the matter. In the present case, the impugned order did not record any finding that adjournment was not proper, nor did it show consideration of the relevant circumstances. The absence of such reasoning made the exercise of discretion legally infirm.

Conclusion: The acquittal under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was unsustainable and was rightly set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge succeeded, and the matter was restored for disposal according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: Before passing an acquittal for non-appearance of the complainant in a summons case, the Magistrate must record a reasoned exercise of discretion showing that adjournment would not be proper.

---