JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J.

1. On the last date of hearing i.e. February 05, 2003 it was ordered by me that the counsel for the petitioner (Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate) and counsel for the respondent (Mr. B.S. Thind, Advocate) be informed of the actual date of hearing i.e. 12.2.2003 as none had appeared from either side on the last date of hearing. However, on 12.2.2003 the present petition could not be taken up by me. Office report shows that counsel for the parties were duly informed.

2. The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 25.4.1997 Annexure P/2 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar whereby the complaint of the petitioner under Section 25/26 read with Section 47 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been dismissed for want of prosecution.

3. The case of the petitioner is that M/s Platewell Electroplaters, D-II, Phase I, Mohali Distt. Ropar was found discharging its trade effluent, when inspected by the Board officials, without installing any effluent treatment plant or constructing any sewer. It is then the case of the petitioner that both the respondents were given an opportunity to explain their position but it was not availed of by the respondents and ultimately the petitioner filed the complaint (Annexure P/1) against the respondents after getting due approval/sanction. It has further been averred that the present complaint has to be tried as a warrant case as the contravention of the provisions of Section 25 or 26 of the Act are punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 2 years but which may extend to 6 years and with fine. it is further asserted on behalf of the petitioner that after the recording of the evidence, charge was framed against the respondents vide order dated 2.3.95. Thereafter the case was posted for after charge evidence and one PW was also examined on 2.8.1996 and then the matter was adjourned for remaining PWs. One of the dates fixed for after charge evidence was 25.4.97 and on that day the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar vide order Annexure P/2.

4. I have heard Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner. However, none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents to assist this Court.

5. The grouse shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is totally contrary to the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. As the present complaint relates to a warrant case, the learned trial court should have adopted the provisions of section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such the Court has no jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint in this eventuality. In support of this, Mr. Bansal has read Section 249 of the Cr.P.C. before me. He has also relied upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Baljinder Singh v. Jagsir Singh and Ors. 1991(2) RCR 251.

6. I have perused the impugned order. Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is reproduced as under:--

"249- When the proceedings have been instituted upon complaint, and on any day fixed for the hearing of the case, the complainant is absent, and the offence may be lawfully compounded or is not a cognizable offence, the Magistrate may, in his discretion, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, at any time before the charge has been framed, discharge the accused."

7. The plain reading of aforesaid section makes it clear that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint where the offence is either non-compoundable or is cognizable and in a case where the charge has been framed.

8. In the present case, it has been averred that the charge was framed against the respondents on 2.3.95 and thereafter one PW was also examined on 2.8.96 as after charge evidence and as such, the judgment in Baljinder Singh's case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is fully applicable to the facts of the present case.

9. For the foregoing reasons, the order in question (Annexure P/2) deserves to be set-aside. Accordingly, revision petition is allowed and the order dated 25.4.97 dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution is hereby set-aside. The complaint is restored to its original position. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 24.3.2003 for further proceedings. The copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court without any delay.

10. Since it is an old matter relating to the year 1992, the trial court is directed to speed up the trial and would make all its endeavour to finish the case at the earliest preferably within six months. Since the respondents go un-represented in the present petition before me, the trial court would secure the presence of the respondents according to law.