Jasraj Chopra, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed against the Judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar dated 28.11.1977 whereby the learned lower. It therefore, find no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed, court has dismissed the complaint of the complainant under s. 256 Cr. P.C. for the absence of the complainant because on the date, the case was fixed for the evidence of the complainant and the complainant was found absent without any reason.
(2.) A complaint was lodged by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. Vijaynagar against the respondents for the offences under 28, 29 and 36(3) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Product Market Act, 1961 The offence under S. 28 of the Act is punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three month and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees and in case of a continuing contravention, with a further fine which way extend to five hundred rupees for every day during which the contravention is continued after the first conviction. The offence under S. 29 of the Act is punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month and with fine, which may extend to one thousand rupees and the offence under S. 36(3) is punishable with a fine which may extend to two hundred rupees.
(3.) I need not go into the merits of the dismissal of the complaint on account of the absence of the complainant. The occurrence relates to the year 1977 and at present, we are running in the year 1988. It will be now most unjust to remand the case back to the learned lower court for trial of such a trivial offence. It is true that the complainant was absent for the past three consecutive dates and on the relevant date, the complaint was fixed for recording evidence of the complainant and, therefore, the complainant should have shown compelling reasons for his absence. However, this was the first date of hearing for recording the evidence of the complainant and the Court could have exercised leniency and might not have dismissed the complainant but such a discretionary order cannot-be interfered after the expiry of such a long time specially then the offence is of a trivial nature.;