JUDGMENT
Palnitkar, J.
1. This revision petition has been directed against the order of the District Magistrate, Hyderabad City, dated 3-8-1954. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint and discharged the accused on account of the absence of the complainant. The case was a summons case. It was disposed of at 11-20 A. M. It is argued that the advocate and the complainant could not go to the Court in time on account of some’trouble to the car of the advocate. We think that it was, under tile circumstances, an adequate reason for being late. No doubt Section 247, Criminal P. C. gives a discretion to the Magistrate to dismiss a complaint for the non-appearance of the complainant but such a discretion must be used in a judicial manner. Dismissing a complaint at the early hours of the Court when there was other work before the Court was not justified, in our opinion, under the circumstances. There is another flaw in the order of the Magistrate, Under Section 247 the accused can be acquitted and not discharged.
2. For the above reasons, we set aside the order of tile lower Court and direct that the complaint be heard and disposed of according to law.
