https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296888 Dismissal of a complaint for the complainant's non-appearance under Section 256(1) of the Code operated as an acquittal where the Magistrate did not adjourn the matter. In a complaint case, the proper challenge to that acquittal was an application for special leave to appeal under Section 378(4), and not revision. Because an appeal remedy was available, Section 401(4) barred the complainant from pursuing revision. The revisional order setting aside the Magistrate's dismissal was therefore held unsustainable and was quashed. en-us Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Aug 2021 12:43:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296888 Dismissal of a complaint for the complainant's non-appearance under Section 256(1) of the Code operated as an acquittal where the Magistrate did not adjourn the matter. In a complaint case, the proper challenge to that acquittal was an application for special leave to appeal under Section 378(4), and not revision. Because an appeal remedy was available, Section 401(4) barred the complainant from pursuing revision. The revisional order setting aside the Magistrate's dismissal was therefore held unsustainable and was quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296888