( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal has had a long history in the High Court. The State has appealed against the order of acquittal on the ground that it is unjustified whereas the respondents' learned advocate submitted that with the record as it stood, the order of acquittal was perfectly warranted because, regardless of the charges, that there were really serious lacunae in the present case in so far as the Investigating Officer was not examined, the doctor was not examined and certain material parts of the records were deficient. It was for this reason that we called for an explanation from the Presiding Officer and he has tried to put forward the plea that the prosecutor was the person responsible. He has also tried to point out that the greater part of the proceeding had taken place during the tenure of his predecessor and that consequently, he is not responsible. What we need to point out is that irrespective of what the state of the record may be or what orders the predecessor may have passed, a responsible Judicial Officer is required to take requisite corrective action even to off set the damage and consequently, this explanation is not good enough. Furthermore, the e