Section 256 CrPC acquittal upheld where repeated complainant absence and delay justified refusal to adjourn.

Section 256 CrPC permits acquittal when the complainant is absent on the appointed day unless the Magistrate records reasons to adjourn the matter. The text states that repeated absence by the complainant, failure to take effective steps to lead evidence, and delay causing hardship to the accused justified the Magistrate's refusal to grant further adjournment. The order was treated as a reasoned exercise of judicial discretion rather than a mechanical dismissal, and the challenge to the acquittal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Magistrate was justified in acquitting the accused under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the complainant's repeated absence and whether the order showed proper exercise of judicial discretion.

Analysis: Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 authorises acquittal when the complainant does not appear on the appointed day, unless the Magistrate considers it proper to adjourn the matter for recorded reasons. The order showed that the complainant remained absent on several dates, no effective step was taken to produce evidence, and the Magistrate recorded that repeated absence was delaying the trial and causing hardship to the accused. The case was therefore not dismissed mechanically; the Magistrate applied discretion to the facts and recorded reasons for declining further adjournment.

Conclusion: The acquittal under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held to be justified and the challenge to that order failed.

---