https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40586 Where evidence had already been recorded in a smuggling-related complaint, the Magistrate should not have dismissed the case for default merely because the prosecution was absent; the recorded material required the matter to proceed according to law. The revisional court was entitled under Section 399 CrPC to interfere with an illegal or incorrect subordinate order, including where the revisional applicant was a successor officer in the same office. The order restoring the complaint for further trial was therefore upheld, and the challenge to that revisional order failed. en-us Fri, 24 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 May 2010 18:39:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40586 Where evidence had already been recorded in a smuggling-related complaint, the Magistrate should not have dismissed the case for default merely because the prosecution was absent; the recorded material required the matter to proceed according to law. The revisional court was entitled under Section 399 CrPC to interfere with an illegal or incorrect subordinate order, including where the revisional applicant was a successor officer in the same office. The order restoring the complaint for further trial was therefore upheld, and the challenge to that revisional order failed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 24 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40586