1. This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gooty in C.C. No. 177/1972. The learned Magistrate took into consideration the facts that the complaint was filed in 1972 by the Excise Sub-Inspector under A.P. Excise Act and he did not choose to produce witnesses before the Court, though several adjournments were granted and though summons for the production of witnesses were taken, they were not served or returned and hence passed the impugned orders holding that the prosecution has no witnesses to produce and they are not interested to prosecute the matter. He, therefore, applied the provisions of Section 251-A(11), Cr. P.C. and acquitted the accused.

2. Sri Srinivasa Rao, the learned Public Prosecutor, contends that the Magistrate has no power to acquit the accused under S.251-A(11), Cr. P.C. since the case does not come under the said provision. He further contends that the Magistrate should have taken coercive steps for securing the attendance of the complainant and other witnesses and the order of acquittal is, therefore, contrary to law.

3. Sri Padmanabha Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondent accused, on