There were two persons, Enayetullah and Panchu, accused in the case with criminal trespass and theft. The attendance of Panchu could not be obtained and the trial proceeded against Enayetullah. The complainant being absent, the Magistrate under sec. 247, C. Cr. P., dismissed the case and acquitted Enayetullah. He did not acquit Panchu because Panchu had never been before him but nevertheless he “dismissed the case” by which, we understand, he desired to terminate all proceedings relating to that matter in his Court.
The District Magistrate, however, has considered that the order under sec. 247 dismissing the case should be set aside and the case proceeded with as against Panchu. We are not aware of any authority for this order. It is not an order that could properly be passed under sec. 437, C. Cr. P. We accordingly direct that order be set aside and that no further proceedings be taken in respect of Panchu.
H.P.C
Order set aside.