https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295877 Section 256 CrPC permits a Magistrate to acquit the accused where the complainant is absent, unless adjournment is considered proper. On the facts described, prolonged pendency, the complainant's death, ineffective substitution efforts, and repeated absence made the Magistrate's exercise of discretion proper, so the acquittal stood. In an appeal against acquittal under Section 378(4) CrPC, interference must remain limited to cases where the trial court's view is not a possible one. The High Court's reliance on a general preference for merits-based disposal, without addressing the restricted scope of appellate review or the complainant's lack of diligence, was unsustainable, and the acquittal was restored. en-us Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Dec 2023 14:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295877 Section 256 CrPC permits a Magistrate to acquit the accused where the complainant is absent, unless adjournment is considered proper. On the facts described, prolonged pendency, the complainant's death, ineffective substitution efforts, and repeated absence made the Magistrate's exercise of discretion proper, so the acquittal stood. In an appeal against acquittal under Section 378(4) CrPC, interference must remain limited to cases where the trial court's view is not a possible one. The High Court's reliance on a general preference for merits-based disposal, without addressing the restricted scope of appellate review or the complainant's lack of diligence, was unsustainable, and the acquittal was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295877