https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160497 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. en-us Tue, 16 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Dec 2025 13:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160497 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 16 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160497